Agenda packet, first session — Fremont City Council, May 6, 2025 (part 2 of 4)

Regulatory Setting:

The State
Water Resource Control Board’s (SWRCD) statewide stormwater general permit for construction activity (Order WQ 2022-0057-DWQ) is applicable as of September 1 st, 2023 to all land-disturbing construction activities that would disturb one acre or more. Per SWRCB permit requirements, the applicant must comply with standard erosion control measures that employ Best Management Practices (BMPs) and develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The goal of the SWPPP is to implement measures in disturbed areas to minimize non-stormwater discharges (ie) discharge or accidental spills of fuels, oils, petroleum hydrocarbons, paints, solvents, cleaners, or other construction materials) and minimize stormwater discharge (ie) transport of sediments) into nearby drainage conveyances. Potential erosion and transportation of soil particles and/or environmental contaminants would be managed through standard construction BMPs that may include, but are not limited to, the following:
 Identifying a construction schedule that restricts excavation and grading activities to the dry season (generally April 15 to October 15) to reduce erosion associated with intense rainfall and surface runoff  Implementing temporary erosion and sediment control measures in disturbed areas to minimize discharge of sediment into nearby drainage conveyances. These measures may include, but are not limited to, silt fences, stalked straw bales or wattles, sediment/silt basins and traps, geofabric, sandbag dikes, and temporary vegetation.
 Establishing permanent vegetative cover to reduce erosion in disturbed areas by slowing runoff velocity, trapping sediment, and enhancing filtration
 Using drainage swales, ditches, and earth dikes to control erosion and runoff by intercepting and diverting runoff accumulation at the base of a grade, and avoiding flood damage along roadways and facility infrastructure
The SWPPP also requires implementation of permanent post-construction measures that would remain in service to protect water quality throughout the life of the project.

In addition to these state requirements, the applicant must also conform with provisions from the Fremont Municipal Code Chapter 18.210, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control.

The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulates stormwater discharges from municipalities and local agencies in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties, as well as the cities of Fairfield, Suisun City, and Vallejo under a single Municipal Regional Permit (Order No. R2-2022-0018, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008). This permit includes provision for new development and redevelopment projects. Provision C.3 requires source control, site design, and stormwater treatment measures to address stormwater pollutants and to prevent increases in flow rates from developed areas. Source control and site design features must treat stormwater runoff from all on-site impervious surfaces on site before it is discharged into the public storm drain system. In addition, projects are required to evaluate opportunities for incorporating low-impact development strategies, such as self-treating landscape areas, re-use of stormwater, on-site infiltration, and evapotranspiration.

5.A.d
Packet Pg. 221
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) City of Fremont 64

1.10.2 Discussion
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
The project would be required to connect to the existing public sanitary sewer and storm drain systems that serve the area and would obtain its water from existing piped public water mains serving the site. The Alameda County Water District has reviewed the project and has not indicated any issues with meeting the project’s water demands without significantly impacting its supplies or its distribution system. The proposed development would not violate any water quality standards. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality and no mitigation is required.

There is nothing
peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic and there is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR.

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
b) Substantially
decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
The proposed project would obtain its water supply from the existing public water mains serving the site.

The proposed project sits on an already developed site and would include modern stormwater development practices which would improve the current condition of the site.

The project would be required to abide by the SWRCD general permit for construction activity and the applicant must comply with standard erosion control measures that employ BMPs as well as develop a SWPPP to minimize non-stormwater discharges. These measures would prevent damage to the groundwater resulting from the project’s construction and operation. The proposed project would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge in a way that may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge in a way that may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin and no mitigation is required.

There is nothing
peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding groundwater supplies, recharge, or management.

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

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required

5.A.d
Packet Pg. 222
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) City of Fremont 65
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in substantial on- or offsite erosion or siltation; ii) Substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iv) Impede
or redirect flood flows?
Because the project would replace more than 10,000 square feet of existing impervious surface area with new impervious surface, it would be subject to the NPDES C.3 requirements of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit, which regulates the treatment of stormwater runoff on the site. The proposed project would result in approximately 262,000 square feet of impervious surface. The applicant would be required to incorporate low impact development (LID) techniques to treat stormwater runoff from all on-site impervious surfaces in bio-retention planters before it is discharged into the public storm drain system.

These LID measures include source control, site design, and treatment measures to reduce the amount of stormwater runoff and improve the quality of stormwater runoff.

The City of
Fremont requires the implementation of BMPs described in the C3 Technical Guidance Manual, provided through Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program, of which the City of Fremont is a member (Clean Water Program, 2015). These state and local requirements were developed to ensure that stormwater is managed, and erosion is controlled on construction sites. The BMPs would include but would not be limited to physical barriers to prevent erosion and sedimentation, construction of sedimentation basins, limitations on work periods during storm events, use of infiltration swales, protection of stockpiled materials, and a variety of other measures that would substantially reduce or prevent erosion from occurring during construction. The C3 Technical Guidance Manual provides further details of specific BMPs, including measures for site design, source control, stormwater treatment, and hydromodification. The grading and building plans submitted by the applicant must demonstrate compliance prior to issuance of building permits.

Implementation of the above
listed standard project requirements and conformance with the NPDES permit would ensure impacts to downstream waters from erosion and polluted stormwater runoff would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

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

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
d) In
flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Per the current Federal Emergency Management Agency flood zone maps the project site is not within a flood zone. The site is not located in any tsunami or seiche zones therefore there is no risk of pollutant release due to project inundation. Therefore, there is no risk of release of pollutants due to project inundation and no mitigation is required.

5.A.d
Packet Pg. 223
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) City of Fremont 66
There is nothing peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding inundation. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic and there is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR.

Potential Impact: No impact
Mitigation: None required
e) Conflict
with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
The proposed project would not substantially alter existing drainage patterns or result in the alteration of the course of any water body. Drainage from the project would be directed into a landscape-based treatment area located within the development, where the flow volumes would be metered and ultimately discharged into the public storm drain system. As discussed under items a) and b) above, the project would not violate any water quality standards or interfere with groundwater recharge or management.

Therefore, the impact of the project on the implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

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

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
References

1. City of Fremont, 2011. City of Fremont General Plan. Housing Element. Adopted December 2011. Available:
https://fremont.gov/generalplan. Accessed March 18, 2020.

2. City of Fremont, 2024. SACGISA. Fremont Mapping. Available online at http://egis.fremont.gov/apps/public/.

3. Clean Water Program. 2023. C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance. A handbook for developers, builders, and project applicants, Version 8.

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

5.A.d
Packet Pg. 224
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) City of Fremont 67

1.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Relationship to GP EIR
Findings: Project Conclusions:

Would the Project:

GP EIR
Findings
Equal or
Less
Severe
New or
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
Applicable Mitigation,
Standard Requirements
Resulting
Level
of
Significance
a): Physically divide an established
community? No Impact  ☐ - No Impact
b) Cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect?
LTS  ☐ - LTS

1.11.1 Environmental Setting
The City of Fremont General Plan, which was adopted in December 2011, is the land use plan applicable to the proposed project. The project is not a component of a specific plan or local coastal program. The Fremont Municipal Code is the zoning ordinance applicable to the proposed project.

1.11.2 Discussion
a) Physically
divide an established community?
The project site is part of an area with many adjacent commercial offices and industrial within an existing commercial neighborhood within the City of Fremont. The proposed project would not divide an established community because the project would develop a portion of vacant lands adjacent to lands developed with commercial buildings. The project would not modify the public right of way or other existing routes of travel through the area. Therefore, there would be no environmental impact and no mitigation would be required.

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

Potential Impact: No impact
Mitigation: None required
b) Cause
a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
The proposed project would conform to the City of Fremont General Plan and the proposed use is allowed in the P-81-15. The project is consistent with the following goals and policies in the General Plan related to infill development and directing change for orderly growth and compatibility.

Land Use Element Policy 2-2.14: Maintaining and Improving Development Continuity Integrate new large-scale development projects into the fabric of the existing community rather than allowing such projects to be self-contained, walled off or physically divided from surrounding

5.A.d
Packet Pg. 225
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) City of Fremont 68
uses. New development should be viewed as an opportunity to improve connectivity between neighborhoods. To the extent feasible, circulation systems and open spaces in such developments should tie into existing streets and open spaces on the perimeter. In addition, existing development should be retrofitted over time to reduce unnecessary walls and barriers and improve pedestrian connections between neighborhoods.

Land Use
Goal 2.2: Directing Change
Growth and
development that is orderly and efficient, leverages public investment, ensures the continued availability of infrastructure and public services, reduces adverse impacts on adjacent properties, and protects the natural environment.

Land Use
Policy 2-2.5: Zoning and Subdivision Regulations
Use zoning and subdivision regulations to direct the city’s growth, ensure sufficient opportunities for new development, improve Fremont’s quality of life, create complete neighborhoods, reduce nuisances, achieve compatibility between adjacent properties and uses, address land use conflicts, and protect the health and safety of residents, visitors, and workers.

Conformance with
the Fremont General Plan Goals and Policies above would ensure that the project avoids a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect resulting in a less than significant impact and no mitigation is required.

There is nothing
peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding conflicts with a land use plan, policy, or regulation.

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
References

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

2. City of Fremont, 2024. SACGISA. Fremont Mapping. Available online at https://www.fremont.gov/government/departments/gis.

3. City of Fremont, 2024. City of Fremont Municipal Code, Chapter 18, Planning and Zoning.

Available online at https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Fremont/.

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

5.A.d
Packet Pg. 226
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) City of Fremont 69

1.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Relationship to GP EIR
Findings: Project Conclusions:

Would the Project:

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

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

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

Potential Impact: No impact
Mitigation: None required
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? The project site is not identified as containing any locally important mineral resources in the Fremont General Plan. There are no operating mines or quarries in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, no impact to such resources would result an no mitigation is required.

Potential Impact: No impact
Mitigation: None required
References

1. City of Fremont, 2011. City of Fremont General Plan. Land Use Element. Adopted December 2011. Available:
https://fremont.gov/generalplan.

5.A.d
Packet Pg. 227
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) City of Fremont 70

2. City of Fremont, 2024. City of Fremont Municipal Code, Chapter 18, Planning and Zoning. Available online at www.fremont.gov/fmc.

3. United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2014, Mineral Resources On-Line Spatial Data, Available at https://mrdata.usgs.gov/general/map.html, Accessed

5.A.d
Packet Pg. 228
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) City of Fremont 71

1.13 NOISE
Relationship to GP EIR
Findings: Project Conclusions:

Would the Project:

GP EIR
Findings
Equal or
Less
Severe
New or
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
Applicable Mitigation,
Standard Requirements
Resulting
Level
of
Significance
a): Generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the
project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or in other applicable
local, state, or federal standards?
SU, even with
MM
Noise-1
through
Noise-4
 ☐ SDR FMC

18.218.050(g):

Noise
LTS with
SDR
b) Generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels?
SU, even with
MM
Noise-5
 ☐ - LTS
c) For a project located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
LTS  ☐ - LTS

1.13.1 Environmental Setting
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 project site is surrounded primarily by commercial and residential uses. The nearest noise-sensitive uses are the residential uses to the east, approximately 155 feet from the eastern edge of the project site.

There are no airports within the City of Fremont or within two miles of the project site. Airports are not a significant contributor to the existing noise environment in the project vicinity. The closest airports by approximate distance from the project site are San Jose International Airport (19 miles to the project site), Moffett Federal Airfield (9 miles to the project site), and Hayward Executive Airport (7.3 miles to the project site).

1.13.2 Discussion
a) Generation
of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, state, or federal standards? A Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis was prepared by LSA in February 2024. While construction noise will vary, it is expected that average noise levels during construction at the nearest commercial uses to the south would approach 67 dBA Leq, during the site preparation phase, which would take place for a duration of approximately 3 weeks. Average noise levels during other construction phases would range from 53 dBA Leq to 66 dBA Leq. While construction operations have the potential to generate audible noise at surrounding uses, construction noise levels generated during the permitted hours are exempt from

5.A.d
Packet Pg. 229
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) City of Fremont 72
compliance with City noise standards and would be less than significant. No noise reduction measures are required. Furthermore, the elevated noise levels would cease once project construction is completed.

As stated above, noise impacts associated with construction activities are regulated by the City’s Noise Ordinance. The proposed project would be required to comply with the construction hours specified in the City’s Noise Ordinance, which states that construction activities on sites within 500 feet of a residentially zoned property shall be limited to the weekday hours of 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., and weekend or holiday hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Additionally, Policy 10 – 8.5 of the City’s General Plan Noise Element requires the proposed project to develop techniques to minimize the noise impacts on residences from construction activities in or near residential neighborhoods. With FMC Section 18.218.050 (g) additionally requires best practices for construction noise minimization (which superseded General Plan Mitigation Measures Noise-1 through Noise-4 along with Noise Ordinance regulations) and construction activity noise impacts would be less than significant.

FMC 18.218.050(g):

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, which 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 Air Resource Board 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. (Ord. 27-2016 § 37, 12-6-16; Ord. 23-2018 § 41, 10-2-18.)
Operationally, noise
increases at area receptors would occur primarily from an increase in vehicular traffic.

Table K of the LSA Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis determined that traffic noise increases due to the project would be below the threshold of perception (3 dBA) except for on Commerce Drive east of Paseo Padre Parkway where even with the project increase of 3.7 dBA, traffic noise near this roadway would remain at or below the 60 dBA Ldn exterior City standard for sensitive (residential) uses. Therefore, operational noise impacts would be less than significant and no noise reduction measures are required.

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

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None Required

5.A.d
Packet Pg. 230
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) City of Fremont 73
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Ground-borne noise and vibration from construction activity would be mostly low. Table J of the Noise Memo prepared for the project by LSA Associates provides reference PPV (in/sec) values from typical construction vibration sources at 25 ft. Although the specific pieces of equipment that would be used on the site are unknown at this time, to provide an analysis of potential vibration levels expected for a project of this size, a large bulldozer would generate 0.089 PPV (in/sec) of ground-borne vibration when measured at 25 ft, based on the FTA Manual (2018). As shown in Table E of the Noise Memo prepared for the project by LSA Associates, it would take a minimum of 0.20 PPV (in/sec) to cause any potential building damage to non-engineered timber and masonry buildings.

The closest structures
to the project site are the existing adjacent properties located north of proposed Building 2 and south of proposed Building 6, approximately 40 ft or more from the construction activity limits. It is expected that vibration levels generated by dump trucks and other large equipment that would generate ground-borne vibration levels of up to 0.044 PPV (in/sec) at the closest structures to the project site. This vibration level would not exceed the 0.2 PPV (in/sec) threshold that is considered safe for non- engineered timber and masonry buildings. Vibration levels at all other buildings would be lower.

Construction would not result in any vibration damage, and impacts would be less than significant.

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

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
c) For
a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
The City
does not have a commercial, military, or general aviation airport. Moffett Federal Airfield is a joint civil-military airport located about 9 miles southwest of the project site. Oakland International Airport and Mineta San José International Airport, which are both public-use airports, are located approximately 7.3 miles northwest and 19 miles south of the project site, respectively. The project site lies outside the area of influence for each of these airports. Noise from aircraft would not substantially increase ambient noise levels at the project site, and interior noise levels resulting from aircraft would be compatible with the proposed project. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact and no mitigation would be required.

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

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
References

2. City of Fremont, 2024. City of Fremont Municipal Code, Chapter 18, Planning and Zoning. Available online at https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Fremont/.

5.A.d
Packet Pg. 231
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) City of Fremont 74

3. City of Fremont, 2024. SACGISA. Fremont Mapping. Available online at https://www.fremont.gov/government/departments/gis.

4. LSA Noise and Vibration memo, February 7, 2024, prepared for the City of Fremont by LSA Associates.

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

5.A.d
Packet Pg. 232
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) City of Fremont 75

1.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Relationship to GP EIR
Findings: Project Conclusions:

Would the Project:

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

1.14.1 Environmental Setting
The project would complete development of the six-parcel site that’s located at the north end of the greater Ardenwood Corporate Commons Business Park, which is the industrially-focused area within the Ardenwood Forest—New Town, a Planned District adopted for the area that planned for approximately 3,800 residential units, 280 acres for a high technology business park, 37 acres for commercial uses, and 105 acres for schools, parks, and open space. Much of the plan has been implemented; the project would infill a significant portion of the planned yet unbuilt industrial area.

As proposed,
the southern portion of the site along Commerce Drive would be developed with two (2) two-story light industrial buildings, both measuring 75,112 square feet, and one (1) three-story, 91,162- square-foot light industrial building. The two-story buildings would stand 36’-6” tall and the three-story building would stand 51’-6” in height. The site’s Paseo Padre Parkway frontage would be developed with two (2) two-story light industrial buildings. The building proposed at the southern end of the frontage would measure 75,112 square feet in size and the building proposed at the northern end of the frontage would measure 90,750 square feet. Both buildings would measure 36’-6” in height. Situated between these two buildings is an existing one-story light industrial building (6200 Paseo Padre Parkway) measuring 43,172 square feet that would be renovated but not expanded. Two existing light industrial buildings along the Ardenwood Boulevard frontage (34175 and 34325 Ardenwood Boulevard) would remain unmodified by the project.

1.14.2 Discussion
a) Induce
substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
In the City of Fremont’s adopted General Plan, Chapter 2 “Land Use,” it states that the Tech Industrial, which this project is located in, accommodated research and development, green tech, administrative, sales, and engineering facilities. Specifically, in the Ardenwood area campus like developments with two story buildings on large parcels are envisioned. The population growth to the area it is located in, is planned and encouraged in City of Fremont General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not induce a substantial unplanned population growth in the area and would have a less than significant impact and no mitigation is required.

5.A.d
Packet Pg. 233
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) City of Fremont 76
There is nothing peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding population growth. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic and there is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR.

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None Required
b) Displace substantial
numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The proposed project site is currently developed as a commercial office that does not include any residential units. No residential land would be displaced. Therefore, there would be no impact as a result of this project and no mitigation is required.

Potential Impact: No impact
Mitigation: None required
References

1. State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State — January 1, 2011-2020. Sacramento, California, May 2020.Available online at http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-5/. Accessed May 29, 2020.

2. City of Fremont, 2011. City of Fremont General Plan. Housing Element. Adopted December 2011. Available:
https://fremont.gov/generalplan.

3. City of Fremont, 2024. SACGISA. Fremont Mapping. Available online at http://egis.fremont.gov/apps/public/.

4. City of Fremont, 2024. City of Fremont Municipal Code, Chapter 18, Planning and Zoning. Available online at www.fremont.gov/fmc.

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

5.A.d
Packet Pg. 234
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) City of Fremont 77

1.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Relationship to GP EIR
Findings: Project Conclusions:

Would the Project:

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

1.15.1 Environmental Setting
Fire Protection
Fire protection services in the project area are provided by the City of Fremont Fire Department. In 2020, the Fire Department responded to 9,321 medical calls for service and 602 fire emergencies. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) response accounted for approximately 65% of all calls (City of Fremont Fire Department, 2020). The Fire Department aims to maintain a five minute thirty second response time 90 percent of the time for all emergencies located below the “Toe of the Hill” line. As of 2018, the average response time is three minutes twenty-eight seconds, which surpasses the City’s goal (City of Fremont Fire Department, 2018). The closest station to the project site is Fire Station 10, approximately 1.2 miles from the project site.

Police Protection
Police protection services are provided by the City of Fremont Police Department. The Police Department Dispatch Center handles an average of 800 calls per day. The Police Department deploys officers in three separate zones. The project site is located in Zone 1. The City has one police station located at 2000 Stevenson Boulevard, which is approximately 7.3 miles from the project site.

Schools
The project site is located within the service boundaries of the Fremont Unified School District (FUSD). The project site is currently entirely commercial and located within a commercial business park with some residences existing in the immediate vicinity. Existing neighborhoods adjacent to the project site are currently served by Forest Park Elementary School, which is located at 34400 Maybird Circle. The middle school that serves nearby residences is Thornton Middle School, which is located at 4357 Thornton Avenue. Finally, the high school that serves nearby residences is American High School, which is located at 36300 Fremont Boulevard.

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

5.A.d
Packet Pg. 235
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) City of Fremont 78

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

Fire protection?
The new buildings
would result in additional fire protection demand for the new development. The nearest fire station is Fire Station #10 located at 5001 Deep Creek Road. (1.2 miles away). The proposed project has been reviewed in coordination with the Fremont Fire Department, and no new or physically altered stations or facilities have been determined to be required. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

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

Police protection?
The Fremont
Police Department provides police protection to the Project site. The City has one police station located at 2000 Stevenson Boulevard, which is approximately 7.3 miles from the project site. The project could result in a minor associated increase in the demand for police protection services. The proposed project has been reviewed and no required new or physically altered stations or facilities have been identified. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

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

Schools?
The proposed
project would construct new commercial buildings with no residential units. The project would not have the potential to contribute to substantially reduced performance ratios or the need for new facilities. The Fremont Unified School District charges new development projects school impact fees to help offset the increase cost to the school district to provide services resulting from the proposed project.

The impact of the project related to schools would be less than significant and no mitigation is necessary.

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

Parks?
The increased
population resulting from the project would be expected to marginally increase use of public parks. The population growth that would be attributable to the proposed project would be consistent with the Fremont General Plan and the new development would be subject to development impact fees including those for parkland and park facilities to help offset the impact to Fremont’s parks.

Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact and no mitigation is required.

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

5.A.d
Packet Pg. 236
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) City of Fremont 79
Other public facilities?
The project would result in minor increases in impacts to other public facilities in Fremont and beyond.

The increase in services required would be minor and no new facilities would be required. Additionally, as with all development projects in the City of Fremont, the project would be required to pay Development Impact Fees, which are intended to fund and sustain improvements that are needed as a result of new development. Under this program, the required Capital Facility Fee helps pay for services in such categories as City Administration facilities, City Services Maintenance Center and Corporation Yard, and Libraries. For reasons stated above, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on other public facilities and no mitigation is required.

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

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
References

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

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

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

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

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

6. Fremont Fire Department, 2018. Annual Report.

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

5.A.d
Packet Pg. 237
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) City of Fremont 80

1.16 RECREATION
Relationship to GP EIR
Findings: Project Conclusions:

Would the Project:

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

1.16.1 Environmental Setting
The City of Fremont’s Recreation Services Division provides parks and recreation facilities and services to the City of Fremont. The City maintains approximately 1,223 acres of parkland, spread over 61 parks, which provide recreational facilities and opportunities to the community. A number of other agencies also maintain park and trail systems within the City, including the East Bay Regional Parks District, the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge, and the San Francisco Bay Trail. Parks operated by the City of Fremont in the vicinity of the project site include
Knoll Park (0.9 miles), Fremont Central Park (1.5 miles), and the Downtown Event Plaza (0.6 miles).

1.16.2 Discussion
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
A report by Willdan Financial Services was prepared May 17th, 2021 to analyze the development impact fee needed for these two categories to support future growth consistent with the Fremont General Plan.

The fees were set using a model anticipating population growth through 2035. The proposed project does not have a direct impact on the population growth number and would not be subject to these fees. The City of Fremont General Plan envisioned the area to have continued commercial growth, so the project is consistent with the General Plan and would not result in no new significant effects.

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required

5.A.d
Packet Pg. 238
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) City of Fremont 81
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The project is completely commercial, which would provide a negligible impact on existing recreational facilities or require any expansion of infrastructure. Therefore, the impact of the Project related to recreational facilities would be less than significant and no mitigation is necessary.

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
References

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

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

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

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

5. Wildan Financial Services, Impact Fee Study, 2021.

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

5.A.d
Packet Pg. 239
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) City of Fremont 82

1.17 TRANSPORTATION
Relationship to GP EIR
Findings: Project Conclusions:

Would the Project:

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

1.17.1 Environmental Setting
The project would complete development of the six-parcel site that’s located at the north end of the greater Ardenwood Corporate Commons Business Park, which is the industrially-focused area within the Ardenwood Forest—New Town, a Planned District adopted for the area that planned for approximately 3,800 residential units, 280 acres for a high technology business park, 37 acres for commercial uses, and 105 acres for schools, parks, and open space. Much of the plan has been implemented; the project would infill a significant portion of the planned yet unbuilt industrial area.

Primary access
to the site would be provided via driveways on Ardenwood Boulevard, Paseo Padre Parkway, and Commerce Drive. Regional access to the project site is provided via Interstate 880 (I-880) and State Route (SR)

84. Local access to the site is provided via Paseo Padre Parkway, Ardenwood Boulevard, and Commerce Drive.

Existing bicycle access in the project vicinity is provided via a network of bikeways: Class I paths, Class II bike lanes, Class II buffered bike lanes, and Class IV separated bikeways. There are existing Class I paths along Patterson Ranch Road and there is an existing path south of the project site between Ardenwood Boulevard and Paseo Padre Parkway. Class II bike lanes are provided on Paseo Padre Parkway. Class II buffered bike lanes are provided on Ardenwood Boulevard and a portion of Paso Padre Parkway east of Ardenwood Boulevard. Class IV separated bikeways are provided on Kaiser Drive. In the future, the City of Fremont Bicycle Master Plan (2018) shows Paseo Padre Parkway and Ardenwood Boulevard south of Commerce Drive upgraded to Class IV separated bikeways. A Class III bike route is planned along the site frontage on Commerce Drive.

Sidewalks are
generally found along all previously described streets near the site, with the exception of the north side of Commerce Drive between Paseo Padre Parkway and Ardenwood Boulevard. There are existing shared- use paths on Patterson Ranch Road (western extension of Commerce Drive) and just south of Commerce Drive between Paseo Padre Parkway and Ardenwood Boulevard. All study intersections have pedestrian crosswalks and curb ramps. All signalized intersections have pedestrian actuated pedestrian-crossing phases.

5.A.d
Packet Pg. 240
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) City of Fremont 83
Existing transit service in the project vicinity is provided by the Alameda Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) and the Dumbarton Express. Figure 4 shows the locations of the existing transit service routes. The nearest bus routes are Lines 232 and 621. Line 232 connects the Fremont BART station to the Newpark Mall, via Mission Boulevard, Decoto Road, Paseo Padre Parkway, Ardenwood Boulevard, Newark Boulevard and Cedar Boulevard with 60-minute headways between 7:00 AM and 8:55 PM. Line 232 also maintains weekend service. Line 621 connects Thornton Jr. High School to the Ardenwood Boulevard & Commerce Drive intersection, via Thornton Avenue, Fremont Boulevard, Decoto Road, Paseo Padre Parkway and Ardenwood Boulevard. Near the project site, a bus stop that serves both bus lines is located about 250 feet north of the intersection of Ardenwood Boulevard and Commerce Drive. Another bus stop for Line 232 only is located on Ardenwood Boulevard, about 400
feet south
of Commerce Drive.

There is a transit center with a Park & Ride lot and bus stops at the south corner of the intersection of Ardenwood Boulevard and Ardenwood Terrace, located approximately 0.7 miles from the project site. The close proximity of this transit center to SR 84 makes it easily accessible to the four transbay lines that serve the area. The transit center serves AC Transit line U, as well as the Dumbarton Express bus service lines DB and DB1.The Dumbarton Express is a transbay bus service provided under a consortium of five transit operators (AC Transit, BART, SamTrans, Union City Transit, and VTA). Dumbarton Express is administered by AC Transit. Line DB connects the Union City BART station to Stanford University, via Decoto Road, SR 84, the Dumbarton Bridge (SR 84), Willow Road and University Avenue. Line DB1 connects the Union City BART station to the Palo Alto VA hospital, via Decoto Road, SR 84, the Dumbarton Bridge (SR 84), Willow Road, U.S. 101, Oregon Expressway, and Page Mill Road. The project site is located approximately 4 miles from the nearest BART station, in Union City.

Regulatory Setting:

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

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

1.17.2 Discussion
A Transportation
Analysis was prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants in February 2023 along with a Transportation Demand Management Plan in March 2023. The following discussion is informed by these reports. a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? Construction worker trips would be likely to occur during the weekday AM and PM peak periods (7:00 AM to 9:00AM for AM peak, and 4:00PM to 6:00PM for PM peak). However, even assuming all workers arrived during the AM peak hour and departed during the PM peak hour, the number of trips during each peak hour would be significantly less than the City of Fremont’s threshold for completing a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), which is 100 net new trips in peak hours.

Construction activities at
the site would also generate heavy vehicle trips, including truck trips for off-site soil export, heavy equipment transport, and material deliveries. The consequence of construction-related heavy truck traffic would be a temporary and intermittent lessening of street performance in the project site vicinity due to the larger turning radii of construction trucks compared to passenger vehicles.

However, heavy truck traffic would be spread throughout the entire day and would not be concentrated during peak hours.

5.A.d
Packet Pg. 241
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) City of Fremont 84
Construction activities could result in increased truck traffic and impeded roadway access on the immediate project frontage on Paseo Padre. Any construction within the public right of way would require an encroachment permit from the City of Fremont Public Works department with appropriate traffic controls. Transit routes passing the project site Fremont Boulevard may encounter intermittent delays due to construction within the public right of way, but traffic management plans required by the encroachment permit process would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. Pedestrian circulation past the project site may be intermittently interrupted during construction but would also be subject to the encroachment permit process. Bicycle traffic has the potential to be impacted by heavy truck traffic in the vicinity of the project site.

Bicyclists could
be sharing the road with heavy diesel-powered trucks that have a wider turning radius than typical passenger vehicles. Construction trucks could also obscure lines of sight for bicyclists due to their mass and height. If constant and pervasive, these impacts could reduce the usage and safety of the bicycle system. However, any impact from construction trucks would be temporary and minimal due to the volume and timing of trips. Additionally, truck trips would be dispersed throughout the day and therefore the impact on bicycle travel at any given time is likely to be minimal. Construction trucks would follow applicable vehicular safety ordinances and any signing and striping related to bicycle-vehicular interactions. Therefore, the construction traffic would not conflict with adopted policies on mass transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities and the impact would be less than significant.

Operationally, all
of the streets in the project vicinity have sidewalks and crosswalks at intersections. New sidewalks will be installed by the project on the project frontage on Commerce Drive. Overall, due to the nature of the proposed project, it is anticipated that the volume of pedestrians generated would not exceed the carrying capacity of the existing sidewalks and crosswalks on streets surrounding the site.

Similarly, the
volume of bicycle trips generated by the project would not exceed the bicycle-carrying capacity of the streets surrounding the site, and the increase in bicycle trips would not, by itself, require new off-site bicycle facilities.

The addition of project trips would also not present a barrier to bikes or pedestrians safely crossing roadways with implementation of the proposed recommendations in the analysis, and the project would not preclude any planned modifications to the bike/pedestrian network. Based on these criteria, the proposed project would not create an adverse impact to bike/pedestrian circulation in the area.

Ridership on
the existing bus routes in the area are relatively low and the volume of riders generated by the project (approximately 9 new bus trips during peak commute hours) would not exceed the carrying capacity of the existing bus service near the project site. The project would not generate enough traffic to significantly impact transit operations, nor would it preclude any existing or future transit plans in the area.

Based on these criteria, the proposed project would not cause a significant impact to transit operations in the study area.

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

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
b) Conflict
or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b), which pertains to vehicle miles travelled?
Senate Bill (SB) 743 has changed the primary metric for identifying transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) from vehicle level of service (LOS) to daily vehicle-miles traveled (VMT). The City of Fremont Transportation Impact Analysis Handbook provides CEQA transportation analysis exemption screening criteria for some development projects. The criteria are based on the type of project, its characteristics, and location. If a project meets the City’s screening criteria, the project is expected to result in less-than-significant VMT impacts, and a detailed CEQA VMT

5.A.d
Packet Pg. 242
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) City of Fremont 85
analysis is not required. According to the City of Fremont VMT per employee heat map, the project site is located in an area where the VMT per employee is below the regional average for industrial developments. Therefore, the project’s VMT impact would be less than significant There is nothing
peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding vehicle miles travelled. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic and there is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR.

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
c) Substantially
increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? The proposed project has been reviewed by the City of Fremont’s Transportation Engineering department to ensure that traffic circulation patterns remain safe as part of the development review process for the project. The drive aisles in the existing parking lot would be reconfigured to accommodate the new developments. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact on the public right of way’s travel lanes for pedestrians, motor vehicles, and cyclists.

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

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
d) Result
in inadequate emergency access?
The Fremont Fire Department has reviewed the proposed project for conformance with applicable codes and regulations related to emergency access. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to emergency access and no mitigation would be required.

There is nothing peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding emergency access. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic and there is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
References

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

Accessed November 27, 2023.

2. Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC), 2022. Congestion Management Program. Accessed online at https://www.alamedactc.org/planning/congestion-management-program. Accessed November 27, 2023.

3. City of Fremont, 2024. SACGISA. Fremont Mapping. Available online at https://www.fremont.gov/government/departments/gis.

4. City of Fremont, 2024. City of Fremont Municipal Code, Chapter 18, Planning and Zoning.

Available online at https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Fremont/.

5.A.d
Packet Pg. 243
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) City of Fremont 86

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

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

7. City
of Fremont, 2014. City of Fremont Standard Details for Improvements in Public Right of Way. Available online: https://www.fremont.gov/government/departments/engineering.

8. Hexagon Transportation Consultants. 2023. Local Transportation Analysis for the Ardenwood R&D Industrial Development in Fremont

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

5.A.d
Packet Pg. 244
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) City of Fremont 87

1.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Relationship to GP EIR
Findings: Project Conclusions:

Would the Project:

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

18.218.050(d)(2):

Accidental Discovery
of Cultural Resources
LTS

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

5.A.d
Packet Pg. 245
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) City of Fremont 88

1.18.2 Discussion
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or
eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? The Project site includes currently developed commercial buildings constructed in the 1960sNo listed or eligible historic resources have been identified on the Project site. Therefore, there would be no impact and no mitigation is required.

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

Potential Impact: None
Mitigation: None Required
b) A resource determined
by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe? As part
of the LSA Cultural Resources Study, a search of the Sacred Lands File was performed by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) with a positive result in the region. The LSA study determined that the project area has potential for pre-contact archaeological resources (tribal cultural resources) given the extensive underlying Holocene-age alluvium, proximity to historical Ardenwood Creek and willow groves, and the presence of recorded pre-contact archaeological sites nearby in the same environmental context.

The overall
archaeological sensitivity of project area is lessened by past land uses that included historic- period reclamation efforts (likely consisting of grading and/or filling of Ardenwood Creek and the adjacent floodplain) for agricultural purposes, years of plowing, and grading for and construction of the existing industrial park and adjacent roadways. 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.

While there are
no known tribal cultural resources at the project site, any ground disturbance includes the potential for accidental discovery. As discussed under item a) in Section 1.5 Cultural Resources, FMC Section 18.218.050(d)(2): Accidental Discovery of Cultural Resources (which supersedes General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure Cultural-2) details requirements to address the potential for accidental discovery, including for tribal cultural resources. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on tribal cultural resources and no mitigation is required.

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

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required

5.A.d
Packet Pg. 246
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) City of Fremont 89
References

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

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

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

5.A.d
Packet Pg. 247
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) City of Fremont 90

1.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Relationship to GP EIR
Findings: Project Conclusions:

Would the Project:

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

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

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

5.A.d
Packet Pg. 248
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) City of Fremont 91
Wastewater
USD operates Alvarado Treatment Plan, and provides wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal services to approximately 350,000 people in Fremont, Newark, and Union City. The Alvarado Treatment Plan has a capacity of 33 million gallons per day (mgd), and in 2022 treated an average of 22.23 mgd (USD, 2016). The treatment plant provides both primary and secondary treatment. The District maintains over 839 miles of sewer lines and has 118,338 connections for residential living units (USD, 2022). Seven pump stations operate in USD’s service area, with most of Fremont’s wastewater going to the Irvington Pump Station first before being conveyed to the Alvarado Treatment Plan.

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

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

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

52.2 gallons (ACWD, 2015).

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

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

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

The Alameda County Waste Management Authority, now known as Stopwaste.org, is responsible for developing and implementing a County-wide Integrated Waste Management Plan. This plan includes a Source Reduction and Recycling Element, a No disposal Facility Element, and a Household Hazardous Waste Element (City of Fremont, 2011). According to data supplied by the Alameda County Waste Management Authority, the 2011 diversion rate for Fremont is 73%, a rate above the diversion rate required by AB 939, which mandates jurisdictions to divert 50% of their landfill waste. The Fremont Recycling and Transfer Station facility has diverted more than 250,000 tons of recyclable materials since 2006. Alameda County is planning to establish a countywide composting facility, which would further improve the City’s diversion rate (City of Fremont, 2011).

5.A.d
Packet Pg. 249
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) City of Fremont 92

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

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

Potential Impact: Less than significant.

Mitigation: None required.
b) Have
sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? The development would be served by the Alameda County Water District (ACWD) utilizing the District’s existing water supply system. No issues with obtaining water supplies in normal, dry, and multiple dry years has been identified by ACWD, therefore the project would have a less than significant impact and no mitigation would be necessary.

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

Potential Impact: Less than significant.

Mitigation: None required.
c) Result
in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand, in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
The proposed project would connect into existing sewer lines located in Paseo Padre Parkway.

Wastewater service is provided by the Union Sanitary District (USD). No issues with wastewater capacity related to this project have been identified by USD, therefore the project would have a less than significant impact and no mitigation would be necessary.

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

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required

5.A.d
Packet Pg. 250
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) City of Fremont 93
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? The project would comply with all applicable waste reduction goals and regulations. The Project would be served by the City’s franchised waste hauler, Republic Services, in compliance with the applicable standards governing solid wastes and recyclables, and would comply with all applicable waste reduction goals and regulations. During the construction phase, construction debris are required to be recycled or otherwise diverted from the landfill. When in operation, the facility would be required to maintain waste containers for recycling. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact with respect to solid waste standards and reduction goals and no mitigation is required.

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

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
e) Comply with federal,
state, and local management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
The project would be served by the City’s franchised waste hauler, Republic Services, in compliance with the applicable standards governing solid wastes and recyclables, and would comply with all applicable waste reduction goals and regulations. Therefore the project would have a less than significant impact with respect to solid waste and no mitigation is required.

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

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
References

1. Alameda County Water District, 2024. ACWD Fact Sheet. Available: http://acwd.org/index.aspx?nid=93.

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

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

3. City of Fremont, 2024. SACGISA. Fremont Mapping. Available online at http://egis.fremont.gov/apps/public/.

4. City of Fremont, 2024. City of Fremont Municipal Code, Chapter 18, Planning and Zoning. Available online at www.fremont.gov/fmc.

5. City of Fremont, 2024. Construction & Demolition Debris. Available online at https://fremont.gov/2174/Construction-Demolition-Debris.

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

7. Union
Sanitary District, 2024. About Us. Available online at http://www.unionsanitary.com/about-us.

8. Waste
Management, 2024. Sustainability. Available online at
https://www.republicservices.com/municipality/fremont-ca

5.A.d
Packet Pg. 251
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) City of Fremont 94

1.20 WILDFIRE
Relationship to GP EIR
Findings: Project Conclusions:

Would the Project:

GP EIR
Findings
Equal or
Less
Severe
New or
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
Applicable Mitigation,
Standard Requirements
Resulting
Level
of
Significance
Is the project located in or near state
responsibility areas or lands classified
as high fire hazard severity zones?
If located
in or near state responsibility
areas or lands classified as very high
fire hazard severity zones, would the
project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
 ☐ - LTS
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and
other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks,
and thereby expose project occupants
to pollutant concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
 ☐ - LTS
Require the installation of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
 ☐ - No Impact
Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including downslope or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
N/A
 ☐ - LTS

1.20.1 Environmental Setting
There is a risk of wildfire in certain areas of Fremont due to the interface of residential and open space land uses.

Wildfire risk is greatest adjacent to the open space frame of the City, and becomes less significant towards the interior of the City. The project site is an infill site that is mostly surrounded by urbanized land uses.

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

5.A.d
Packet Pg. 252
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) City of Fremont 95
evacuation routes that may be utilized in the event of a natural disaster depending on the type and location of the emergency.

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

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

1.20.2 Discussion
a) Substantially
impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The project is an infill development located outside the Fire Hazard Severity Zone identified in the General Plan Safety Element’s Fire Hazard Severity Zones map. Project development would occur entirely on private property and thus not alter any or infringe upon any emergency response or evacuation routes and would therefore not have a significant impact on emergency response or evacuation plans.

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

Potential Impact: No impact
Mitigation: None required
b) Due
to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
The project site is not among the areas of the City at risk for wildfire, as it lacks rugged or sloping terrain, flammable vegetation, or limited access. It is thus not susceptible to the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.

Future Project occupants could potentially be subject to a wildfire-related decrease in air quality. These impacts would likely be regional and not be limited to only project site occupants, and the duration of wildfire-related air quality impacts would be temporary. A less than significant impact would thus occur.

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

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required

5.A.d
Packet Pg. 253
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) City of Fremont 96
c) Require the installation of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? Given the site’s distance from areas of wildfire risk and the degree to which the site would be covered with impervious surfaces or landscaped areas that would be regularly maintained and subject to automatic irrigation, the project would not necessitate wildfire prevention/suppression design or infrastructure. No impact would result.

Potential Impact: No impact
Mitigation: None required
d) Expose
people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
The Project site is located outside the City’s mapped Fire Hazard Severity Zone and therefore faces minimal risk for wildfire or risks associated with post-wildfire conditions and hazards. Impacts would thus be less than significant.

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

Potential Impact: Less than Significant
Mitigation: None required
References

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

2. City of Fremont, 2024. SACGISA. Fremont Mapping. Available online at https://www.fremont.gov/government/departments/gis.

3. City of Fremont, 2024. City of Fremont Municipal Code, Chapter 18, Planning and Zoning. Available online at www.fremont.gov/fmc.

5.A.d
Packet Pg. 254
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) City of Fremont 97

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

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

1.21.1 Discussion
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
The site is
characterized by an urban setting, and is surrounded by similar commercial development. The site is fully developed and does not contain habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species on the project site and the site does not serve as habitat for a significant wildlife population. The project site does not contain any historical or prehistoric cultural resources. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact and no mitigation is required.

5.A.d
Packet Pg. 255
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) City of Fremont 98
There is nothing peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding substantially degrading the quality of the environment, substantially reducing the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, causing a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic and there is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR
Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
b) Does
the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) The proposed
project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of environmental impacts. Because of the urban, built-up nature of the project site and the surrounding area, there is no potential for any cumulative considerable impacts related to agriculture, biological resources, historic resource, hydrology, land use, or minerals.

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

The project, and other cumulative development in the City will incrementally increase demands for fire protection, police protection, schools, libraries, parks, trails and other recreational facilities. All cumulative development will be required to provide development impact fees to finance capital improvements to these facilities, and to maintain acceptable service ratios and performance standards.

Therefore, the
proposed project would have a less than significant impact and no mitigation is required.

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

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
c) Does
the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
As described throughout this initial study, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on the environment though existing regulations and project design. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

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

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required

5.A.d
Packet Pg. 256
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) City of Fremont 99
Authority for the Environmental Checklist: Public Resources Code Sections 21083, 21083.5.

Reference: Government Code Sections 65088.4.

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

5.A.d
Packet Pg. 257
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 2 - CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal)

Minutes Zoning Administrator – October 15, 2024 PAGE 1

MINUTES

FREMONT ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 15, 2024

CALL TO ORDER: Zoning Administrator Clifford Nguyen called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.

PRESENT: Zoning Administrator Clifford Nguyen
Mark Hungerford, Senior Planner
Marc Cleveland, Associate Planner
Kim Salazar, Recording Clerk

PUBLIC/ORAL
COMMUNICATION Kelly Abreu commented on zoning allowances for industrial and light-industrial uses.

PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS

Item 1. ARDENWOOD AT PASEO – 6200 Paseo Padre Parkway — PLN2022-00466 – To consider a Discretionary Design Review Permit and a floor area ratio increase request in conjunction with a proposed five -building light -industrial/R&D development consisting of 407,250 square feet of new floor area, plus renovation of an existing 43,1 72-square-foot light -industrial/R&D building, on the site bounded by Paseo Padre Parkway, Ardenwood Boulevard, and Commerce Drive in the North Fremont Community Plan Area; and to consider an exemption from the requirements of the California Environmental Q uality Act (CEQA) per, without limitation, CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, as the project is consistent with the General Plan, for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH#2010082060) was previously prepared and certified.

Associate Planner Marc Cleveland introduced the item and gave a brief summation of the project.

Zoning Administrator Clifford Nguyen opened the public hearing and brought attention to the Notes and Corrections document submitted into record (attached).

The applicant/architect, Evan Sockalosky with Arc Tec Inc., responded to questions from Zoning Administrator Clifford Nguyen regarding the findings and conditions for approval for the proposed project.

Kelly Abreu commented on the following issues, related to the proposed project:
• Number of employees

5.A.e
Packet Pg. 258
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 3 - Zoning Administrator Hearing Minutes (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal)

Minutes Zoning Administrator – October 15, 2024 PAGE 2
• Inadequate infrastructure
• Number of parking spaces
• Inadequacy of environmental review
• Land use incompatibility
The speaker concluded by suggesting that the property be rezoned to office use, and that a supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be conducted.

Kelilah Federman, representing East Bay Residents for Responsible Development, stated that the environmental review done for the proposed project was inadequate, per the CEQA requirements, and that a project level EIR should be conducted. The speaker stated that an email was sent to City staff just minutes before this meeting was called to order.

Zoning Administrator Clifford Nguyen stated that he had not yet received, nor read the email from Kelilah Federman . Mr. Nguyen then asked the applicant questions related to maximum number of employees allowed for the proposed project, to which the property owner, Gavin Christensen, responded that they were amenable to the cap of 1,000 employees, based on the current market ; but that further examination and research would be needed once the market changed. Zoning Administrator Clifford Nguyen also reported to the applicant a request made by Kelly Abreu via email to City staff to allow shared parking for public access to Coyote Hills Regional Park.

Zoning Administrator Clifford Nguyen closed the public hearing for this item.

The Zoning Administrator took the following action on Item 1:

HELD PUBLIC HEARING;
AND
FOUND THAT THE PROJECT AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT “A” IS EXEMPT FROM

FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15183, AS THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL

PLAN FOR WHICH AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR)
(SCH#2010082060) WAS PREVIOUSLY PREPARED AND CERTIFIED; AND

APPROVED THE DISCRETIONARY DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT AND FLOOR AREA RATIO INCREASE, AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT “A,” BASED ON THE

FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IN EXHIBIT “B.”

Item 1 was approved with the following additional conditions of approval:

A-10 Water Supply Assessment (WSA) – The use of the project shall comply with the thresholds of Section 10912 of the Water Code for the requirements of a Water Supply Assessment. The developer shall coordinate with the Alameda County Water District (ACWD) during building perm review with respect to WSA thresholds and comply with all applicable requirements.

5.A.e
Packet Pg. 259
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 3 - Zoning Administrator Hearing Minutes (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal)

5.A.e
Packet Pg. 260
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 3 - Zoning Administrator Hearing Minutes (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal)

5.A.e
Packet Pg. 261
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 3 - Zoning Administrator Hearing Minutes (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal)

7507-002acp
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
DARION N. JOHNSTON
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
ALAURA R. MCGUIRE
TARA C. RENGIFO

Of Counsel
MARC D. JOSEPH
DANIEL L. CARDOZO

SACRAMENTO OFFICE

520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 -4721
TEL: ( 916) 444- 6201
FAX: (916) 444 - 6209

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 - 7037
___________

TEL: (650) 589- 1660
FAX: (650) 589 - 5062
[email protected]

printed on recycled paper

October 23, 2024

Via Electronic Submission, Email, and Overnight Mail

Marc Cleveland, Associate Planner
Mark Hungerford, Project Planner
Community Development
Department, Planning Division
City of Fremont
39550 Liberty Street
Fremont, CA 94537
Emails: [email protected]

[email protected]

Joel Pullen, Planning Manager
[email protected]

Fremont Planning Commissioners
Yonggang Zhang, Chair;
Members: Jasmine Basrai, Vice Chair;
Charles Haiyun Liu;
Shobana Ramamurthi; Benjie Craig;
Benjamin Yee
Emails: [email protected]
;
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected]

Re: Appeal to Planning Commission of Zoning Administrator Approval of Ardenwood at Paseo Project Discretionary Design Review Permit (PLN2022-00466)

Dear Mr. Cleveland, Mr. Hungerford, Mr. Pullen, and Honorable Commissioners:

We are writing on behalf of East Bay Residents for Responsible Development (“East Bay Residents” or “EBRRD”) to appeal the October 15, 2024 Fremont Zoning Administrator approval of the Discretionary Design Review Permit for the Ardenwood at Paseo Project (PLN2022-00466) (“Project”) proposed by Gavin Christenson, H&R Ardenwood and Evan Sockalosky, Arc Tec, Inc. (collectively the “Applicant”) to the City of Fremont (“City”) and the Zoning Administrator’s approval of the CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (“CEQA Checklist”) 1 prepared for the Project (collectively, “Appeal”). This Appeal is filed pursuant to the City of Fremont Municipal Code Chapter 18.300.

East Bay Residents appeals all actions taken by the Zoning Administrator on October 15, 2024 with regard to the Project, including but not limited to the Zoning

1 City of Fremont, Zoning Administrator Agenda Item 1. Ardenwood at Paseo – Informational Item No. 1 – CEQA Determination (Oct. 15, 2024) (hereinafter “CEQA Checklist”).

5.A.f
Packet Pg. 262
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) October 23, 2024

Page 2 ends

7507-002acp

printed on recycled paper
Administrator’s decision to approve the Project pursuant to CEQA exemptions.

East Bay Residents respectfully requests that the Commission uphold this appeal, vacate the Zoning Administrator’s October 15, 2024 decision to approve the Project, and require Staff to withdraw the CEQA Checklist and prepare a legally adequate project-level environmental impact report (“EIR”) for the Project to address all potentially significant impacts of the Project.

This Appeal is filed within 10 calendar days of the Zoning Administrator’s decision, and is accompanied by the following:

• Required appeal form and attachments;
• Appeal fee of $2,450;
• Issues on Appeal: Comments filed with the Zoning Administrator ahead of the October 15, 2024 hearing on the Project, along with accompanying exhibits and expert comments, are attached hereto as Exhibit A.

I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST

Appellants East Bay Residents is an unincorporated association of individuals and labor organizations directly affected by the Project. The association includes the UA Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 342, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 595, Sheet Metal Workers Local 104, Sprinkler Fitters Local 483, and their members and their families who live and/or work in the City of Fremont and Alameda County. EBRRD’s members would be directly affected by the Project’s unmitigated impacts. Individual members may also work on the Project itself. They would therefore be first in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards that may exist on the Project site.

The organizational members of EBRRD also have an interest in enforcing the City’s planning and zoning laws and the State’s environmental laws that encourage sustainable development and ensure a safe working environment for its members.

Environmentally detrimental projects can jeopardize future jobs by making it more difficult and more expensive for business and industry to expand in the region, and by making it less desirable for businesses to locate and people to live there. Indeed, continued degradation can, and has, caused restrictions on growth that reduce future employment opportunities. Finally, Residents’ members are concerned about projects that are built without providing opportunities to improve local recruitment, apprenticeship training, and retention of skilled workforces, and without providing lifesaving healthcare expenditures for the construction workforce.

5.A.f
Packet Pg. 263
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) October 23, 2024

Page 3 ends

7507-002acp

printed on recycled paper
II. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS

Municipal Code Section 18.300.030 states that “[a]ppeals may be filed by any interested party. An appeal shall be submitted in writing, on any form prescribed for that purpose by the city and accompanied by the required fee, and shall state the decision appealed from, the facts and basis for the appeal, and the relief or action sought.”2 Appeals must be filed within 10 calendar days following the date of the decision being appealed.3

This appeal is timely filed within 10 calendar days of the Zoning Administrator’s October 15, 2024 decision to approve the Project. The appeal is accompanied by the required appeal form (Universal Planning Application), the appeal fee of $2,450,4 and comments and evidence providing the basis for the appeal, in compliance with the City’s procedural requirements.

The Universal Planning Application also requires Appellants to attach a Reimbursement Agreement. We understand that East Bay Residents’ Appeal filing will be rejected and not filed unless it is accompanied by a signed Reimbursement Agreement. The Reimbursement Agreement is therefore included with this filing under protest. As East Bay Residents has previously explained to the City, 5 the
City’s practice of requiring members of the public to sign an open-ended Reimbursement Agreement with the City as a condition of filing an administrative land use appeal as members of the public is a violation of law.

The Reimbursement Agreement purports to authorize the City the charge appellants an undefined and unlimited amount of additional money for “staff review, coordination, and processing costs based on real time expended” on the appeal.6 The costs associated with the Reimbursement Agreements are open-ended and are above and beyond the actual appeal fee paid by the Appellant at the time their appeal is filed with the City. The City’s Reimbursement Agreement is an

2 Fremont Municipal Code § 18.300.030(a).
3 Fremont Municipal Code § 18.300.030(b).
4 City of Fremont Fee Schedule (With Developer Deposit Schedule) (July 8, 2024), available at:
https://www.fremont.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/13864/638573532122970000. 5 East Bay Residents previously objected to the City’s use of the Reimbursement Agreement in its 2023 and 2024 administrative appeals of the Fremont Hub Mixed-Use Project (PLN2022-00487) and Gateway Plaza Apartments Project (PLN2023-00198), in which East Bay Residents’ representatives were required to sign the Reimbursement Agreements as a condition of the appeal filings being accepted by the City.
6 See City of Fremont, Universal Planning Application, Part II, Reimbursement Agreement .

5.A.f
Packet Pg. 264
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) October 23, 2024

Page 4 ends

7507-002acp

printed on recycled paper
illegal contract that is void as against public policy.7 The Reimbursement Agreements are also an unduly burdensome requirement which violates EBRRD’s procedural due process rights because it imposes an undue burden on Appellants’ pursuit of an administrative appeal to exhaust administrative remedies required by law.8

III. BASIS FOR APPEAL

The basis for this appeal is set forth in East Bay Residents’ October 15, 2024 comments to the Zoning Administrator,9 as well as supplemental comments and evidence that will be presented to the Planning Commission on appeal.

East Bay Residents’ comments explain that the City’s decision to rely on a streamlining exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Community Plan Exemption)10 and a CEQA addendum pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 violated CEQA and were not supported by substantial evidence because the Project has new or more severe significant impacts than previously analyzed in the 2011 General Plan Update EIR which are peculiar to the Project site and were not known and could not have been known at the time of the EIR’s certification. These impacts are not fully mitigated by the General Plan EIR mitigation measures or the City’s Standard Development Requirements (“SDRs”) and therefore require disclosure and additional mitigation in a project-level EIR. The specific issues presented to the Zoning Administrator are summarized in Exhibit A.

Pursuant to the Municipal Code, the Planning Commission’s review of all appeals “shall be de novo” and appeal review bodies are “not bound by the decision that has been appealed or limited to the issues raised on appeal.” 11 Accordingly, we
reserve the right to supplement this appeal with additional written comments and supporting evidence,12 including but not limited to the City’s appeal fee and deposit structure, prior to consideration by the Planning Commission.

7 See Civil Code §§ 1608, 1667; Yoo v. Jho (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1249, 1251; see Trumbo v. Bank of Berkeley (1947) 77 Cal.App.2d 704, 710 (“The law does not imply a promise to pay for services illegally rendered under a contract expressly prohibited by statute.”). 8 California Teachers Ass’n v. State of Cal. (1999) 20 Cal. 4th 327, 331. 9 See Exhibit A.
10 14 CCR § 15183(a)-(c).
11 Id. at § 18.300.050.
12 Gov. Code § 65009(b); PRC § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (“Bakersfield”) (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121.

5.A.f
Packet Pg. 265
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) October 23, 2024

Page 5 ends

7507-002acp

printed on recycled paper
IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, and as will be presented to the Planning Commission on appeal, East Bay Residents urges the Planning Commission to reverse the Zoning Administrator’s approval of the Project, and require staff to prepare a project-level EIR. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Kelilah D. Federman

Attachments
KDF:acp

5.A.f
Packet Pg. 266
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal)

7507-001

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

Of Counsel
MARC D. JOSEPH
DANIEL L. CARDOZO

SACRAMENTO OFFICE

520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 -4721
TEL: (916) 444- 6201
FAX: ( 916) 444 - 6209

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080- 7037
___________

TEL: (650) 589 - 1660
FAX: (650) 589 - 5062
[email protected]

printed on recycled paper

October 15, 2024

Via Email and Hand Delivery

Clifford Nguyen
Zoning Administrator
Community Development
Department, Planning Division
City of Fremont
39550 Liberty Street
Fremont, CA 94537
Email: [email protected]

Marc Cleveland
Project Planner
Community Development
Department, Planning Division
City of Fremont
39550 Liberty Street
Fremont, CA 94537
Email: [email protected]
Re: Agenda Item 1: Ardenwood at Paseo Project – 6200 Paseo Padre Parkway (PLN2022-00466)

Dear Mr. Nguyen and Mr Cleveland:

On behalf of East Bay Residents for Responsible Development (“East Bay Residents” or “EBRRD”), we submit these comments on the Agenda, 1 Staff Report,2
and CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist (“CEQA Checklist”)3 prepared for the Ardenwood at Paseo Project (PLN2022-00466) (“Project”) proposed by Gavin Christenson, H&R Ardenwood and Evan Sockalosky, Arc Tec, Inc (collectively the “Applicant”) for the October 15, 2024 Zoning Administrator Public Hearing to consider a Discretionary Design Review and a Modification to the Zoning Standards and to consider an exemption from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)
4 per CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5

1 City of Fremont, Agenda, Zoning Administrator Public Hearing, City of Fremont California, 39550 Liberty Street, 3:00 P.M. (Oct. 15, 2024).
2 City of Fremont, Zoning Administrator Permit Staff Report (Oct. 15, 2024) (hereinafter “Staff Report”).
3 City of Fremont, Zoning Administrator Agenda Item 1. Ardenwood at Paseo – Informational Item No. 1 – CEQA Determination (Oct. 15, 2024) (hereinafter “CEQA Checklist”). 4 Pub. Res. Code (“PRC”) §§ 21000 et seq.; 14 Cal. Code Regs. (“CCR”). 5 14 CCR § 15183.

5.A.f
Packet Pg. 267
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) October 15, 2024

Page 2 ends

7507-
The Project site is located at 6100 Paseo Padre Parkway and 6200 Paseo Padre Parkway in Fremont, California. The Project proposes to develop a total of approximately 450,420 square feet of industrial space in six individual buildings, of which five of them (Buildings 2 through 6) would be new buildings. The existing building (Building 1) would be renovated and incorporated into the proposed site layout with the other buildings onsite. The Project site is zoned P-81-15 (Ardenwood Planned District). Once operational, the Project would generate approximately 4,512 average daily trips. The CEQA Checklist provides that the Project would not include any diesel emergency generators or diesel fire pumps. 6 Construction
activities for the project would occur over 24 to 28 months.7 The proposed Project would include the demolition of 77,363 square feet of asphalt and the export of 2,472 cubic yards of soil.
8 The Project is located approximately 738 feet away from the nearest sensitive receptors, children and staff at Happy Memories Shri's Licensed Daycare and residences across the street. The CEQA Checklist makes no mention of the Daycare located within 1000 feet of the Project.

The Project does not meet the criteria for a streamlining exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (“Community Plan Exemption”). The Zoning Administrator does not have substantial evidence to make the proposed finding that the Project “is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, as the project is consistent with the General Plan for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH#2010082060) was previously prepared and certified” because the Project would result in environmental effects that are peculiar to the Project, were not analyzed at a project-level in the General Plan EIR, and would not be fully mitigated by uniform policies and procedures.

As detailed herein, and in the expert consultant reports attached hereto9, the Project was not contemplated in the 2011 General Plan EIR, and has new or more severe significant impacts than previously analyzed in the 2011 General Plan EIR which are peculiar to the Project site, were not analyzed at a project-level, and were not known and could not have been known at the time of the EIR’s certification because the Project had not yet been proposed when the 2011 General Plan EIR was certified. For example, air quality consultant SWAPE’s modeling demonstrates that the Project will have significant site-specific health risk impacts from exposure of local residents, workers, and children to toxic diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) emissions which will result in a cancer risk more severe than analyzed in the 2011

6 CEQA Checklist, p. 16.
7 Id.
8 Id.
9 See Exhibit A, SWAPE Comments on the Ardenwood Warehouse Project (Oct. 14, 2024) (“SWAPE Comments”).

5.A.f
Packet Pg. 268
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) October 15, 2024

Page 3 ends

7507-
General Plan EIR and require additional mitigation. Moreover, the record before the Zoning Administrator does not contain substantial evidence demonstrating that the Project will “not be detrimental to the public health or safety [or] unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of adjacent development nor be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare” as required by the Municipal Code 10 for
approval of the Discretionary Design Review Permit.

As a result, the Zoning Administrator lacks substantial evidence to approve the Project, the CEQA Checklist, or the Discretionary Design Review Permit at this time because the City has not complied with CEQA or the Municipal Code.

East Bay Residents respectfully requests that the Zoning Administrator continue today’s hearing and fulfill its responsibilities under CEQA and the Fremont Municipal Code by withdrawing the CEQA Checklist and preparing a project-level EIR to address the project-specific impacts identified in these comments. We reserve the right to supplement these comments with additional comments, issues, and evidence at later hearings and proceedings related to the Project.
11 I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST

East Bay Residents is an unincorporated association of individuals and labor organizations that may be adversely affected by the potential impacts associated with Project development. The association includes the UA Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 342, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 595, Sheet Metal Workers Local 104, Sprinkler Fitters Local 483, and their members and their families who live and/or work in the City of Fremont and Alameda County.

The individual members of EBRRD live, work, and raise their families in the City and in Alameda County. They would be directly affected by the Project’s unmitigated impacts. Individual members may also work on the Project itself.

They would therefore be first in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards that may exist on the Project site.

10 Fremont Municipal Code § 18.235.060(c).
11 Gov. Code § 65009(b); PRC § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (“Bakersfield”) (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121.

5.A.f
Packet Pg. 269
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) October 15, 2024

Page 4 ends

7507-
The organizational members of EBRRD also have an interest in enforcing the City’s planning and zoning laws and the State’s environmental laws that encourage sustainable development and ensure a safe working environment for its members.

II. LEGAL BACKGROUND

CEQA has two basic purposes, neither of which the City has satisfied in this case. First, CEQA is designed to inform decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental impacts of a project before harm is done to the environment.
12 The EIR is the “heart” of this requirement,13 and has been described as “an environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return.”
14 To fulfill this purpose, the discussion of impacts in an EIR must be detailed, complete, and “reflect a good faith effort at full disclosure.”
15 An adequate EIR must contain facts and analysis, not just an agency’s conclusions.16

Second, CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when possible by requiring imposition of mitigation measures and by requiring the consideration of environmentally superior alternatives. 17 CEQA
imposes an affirmative obligation on agencies to avoid or reduce environmental harm by adopting feasible project alternatives or mitigation measures to address all potentially significant impacts identified in the agency’s CEQA analysis.18 Without an adequate analysis and description of feasible mitigation measures, it would be

12 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15002, subd. (a)(1) (“CEQA Guidelines”); Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Bd. of Port Comm’rs. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1354 (“Berkeley Jets”); County of Inyo v.

Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810.
13 No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 84. 14 County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810. 15 CEQA Guidelines, § 15151; San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 721-722.
16 See Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 568. 17 CEQA Guidelines, § 15002, subd. (a)(2) and (3); Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th, at p. 1354; Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v. Regents of the University of Cal. (1998) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400. 18 Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21002-21002.1.

5.A.f
Packet Pg. 270
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) October 15, 2024

Page 5 ends

7507-
impossible for agencies relying upon an EIR or other environmental document to meet this obligation.

Under CEQA, mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements or other legally binding instruments.19 A CEQA lead agency is precluded from making the required CEQA findings to approve a project unless the record shows that all uncertainties regarding the mitigation of impacts have been resolved. For this reason, an agency may not rely on mitigation measures of uncertain efficacy or feasibility.20 This approach helps “insure the integrity of the process of decision by precluding stubborn problems or serious criticism from being swept under the rug.”21

The CEQA Guidelines explain that when an EIR has been for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:

(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the
involvement of new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be
substantially more severe than shown in the previous
EIR;

19 CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4, subd. (a)(2).
20 Kings County Farm Bureau v. County of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 727-28 (a groundwater purchase agreement found to be inadequate mitigation because there was no record evidence that replacement water was available).
21 Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd Dist. Agricultural Assn. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 929, 935.

5.A.f
Packet Pg. 271
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) October 15, 2024

Page 6 ends

7507-
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would
substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are
considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant
effects on the environment, but the project proponents
decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. 22 Only where none of the conditions described above calling for preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR have occurred may the lead agency consider preparing a subsequent negative declaration, an Addendum or no further documentation.
23 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (“Community Plan Exemption”) provides streamlined review for projects that are consistent with the development density established by an existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified.
24 In those instances, the examination of environmental effects of subsequent buildout projects which were analyzed in the prior EIR may be limited to impacts which:

(1) Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located;
(2) Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan or community plan with which the project is consistent; (3) Are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action; or
(4) Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR.
25 The CEQA Checklist relies on both exemptions.

22 CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)(1)-(3).
23 CEQA Guidelines § 15162(b).
24 CEQA Guidelines § 15183(a).
25 CEQA Guidelines § 15183(b).

5.A.f
Packet Pg. 272
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) October 15, 2024

Page 7 ends

7507-
III. THE CITY LACKS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT

APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT UNDER A COMMUNITY PLAN

EXEMPTION OR ADDENDUM

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Community Plan Exemption) may only be relied on if a Project is consistent with a previously approved land use plan for which an EIR was prepared, and where the project does not have any impacts that are peculiar to the proposed project or parcel, are new or more significant than previously analyzed, are potentially significant off-site or cumulative impacts, or cannot be substantially mitigated by uniformly applicable development policies or standards.26 Similarly, CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (Addendum) prohibits an agency from foregoing preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR if there are substantial changes to a project, changed circumstances, or new information about project impacts that are more severe than previously analyzed. 27 The City’s reliance on a CEQA Checklist to exempt the Project from further CEQA review under CEQA Guidelines 15183 and 15162 is improper and not supported by substantial evidence because the Project has significant project- specific impacts that are peculiar to the Project, were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR, were not know and could not have been known when the 2011 General Plan EIR was certified, and are more severe than previously analyzed. These impacts are not fully mitigated by the General Plan EIR mitigation measures or the City’s Standard Development Requirements (“SDRs”) and therefore require disclosure and additional mitigation in a project-level EIR.

A. The City Cannot Rely on a Community Plan Exemption or Addendum to Approve the Project Because the Project May Result in Significant Health Risk Impacts that are Peculiar to the Project and More Severe than Previously Analyzed

The CEQA Checklist states that the risk associated with project construction at the maximally exposed individual (MEI) would be 12.44 in one million, which would exceed the BAAQMD cancer risk of 10 in one million resulting in an admittedly significant impact which was not disclosed in the General Plan EIR. 28 The CEQA Checklist attempts to dismiss the impact by stating that “all health risks would be reduced with implementation of FCM Section 18.218.050(a)(2), and the reduced cancer risk at the MEI would be 2.17 in one million, which would not

26 14 CCR § 15183(a)-(c).
27 14 CCR § 15162.
28 CEQA Checklist, p. 24.

5.A.f
Packet Pg. 273
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) October 15, 2024

Page 8 ends

7507-
exceed the BAAQMD cancer risk of 10 in one million. Therefore, with implementation of the supplemental construction measures identified in FMC Section 18.218.050(a), construction of the proposed project would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds and would not expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.”29 However, this statement is not supported by substantial evidence because the City did not quantify the health risk from all Project emissions, including DPM exposure during Project operation, and SWAPE determined that reliance on FMC mitigation does not support the conclusion that the health risk impacts would be reduced below the level of significance.30 In particular, SWAPE found that construction emissions may be more severe than analyzed in the 2011 General Plan EIR because the 2011 General Plan EIR did not contemplate the Project within 1000 feet of a daycare facility.

SWAPE conducted a quantified health risk analysis (“HRA”) of the Project’s toxic air contaminant (“TAC”) emissions, including DPM, and identified health risk impacts which are more severe than analyzed in the 2011 General Plan EIR and in the CEQA Checklist. SWAPE identified the Child (2-6 years) excess cancer risk factor, over the course of the Project’s operation as 14.5 in one million.
31 The total excess cancer risk for all populations, including 3rd Trimester pregnant individuals, Infants (0-2), Child (2-16), Adults (16-30) over the lifetime of the Project is 54.3 in one million excess cancer risk.32 The cancer risk associated with development of the Project so close to nearby sensitive receptors results in a significant cancer risk exceeding BAAQMD thresholds of 10 in one million.
33 The impact of Project operation on sensitive receptors, including those at the daycare were not known at the time the 2011 General Plan EIR was certified and are determined to have more severe adverse impacts than discussed in the prior EIR. The 2011 General Plan EIR makes no mention of analysis of impacts of development under the General Plan on daycares within the Project vicinity.

Therefore, SWAPE’s health risk calculations constitute significant new information demonstrating a health risk impact which is more severe than analyzed in the 2011 General Plan EIR. Reliance on a Community Plan Exemption or Addendum is therefore misplaced, and the Zoning Administrator lacks substantial evidence to approve the Project, absent preparation of a project-level EIR.

29 Id.
30 SWAPE Comments, p. 2.
31 SWAPE Comments, p. 7.
32 Id.
33 Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2022 CEQA Guidelines, Thresholds of Significance, p. 3-4.

5.A.f
Packet Pg. 274
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) October 15, 2024

Page 9 ends

7507-
The CEQA Checklist also fails to support a CEQA exemption because it does not contain an HRA to adequately analyze impacts to nearby sensitive receptors within 1000 feet of the Project site. CEQA requires analysis of human health impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(4) provides that the City is required to find a project will have a significant impact on the environment and prepare an EIR if the environmental effects of a project will cause a substantial adverse effect on human beings.34 The Supreme Court has also explained that CEQA requires the lead agency to disclose the health consequences that result from exposure to a project’s air emissions.35 Courts have held that an environmental review document must disclose a project’s potential health risks to a degree of specificity that would allow the public to make the correlation between the project’s impacts and adverse effects to human health.36

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (“BAAQMD”) 2022 CEQA Guidelines specifically recommends that a quantified HRA be prepared for projects within 1000 feet of a school:

For proposed projects within 1000 feet of a school, the Air District recommends that a student analysis is included in the Health Risk Assessment (see Appendix E, Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards). Additionally, for any project located within one-quarter mile of a school that involves the construction or alteration of a facility that might reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous air emissions, or the handling of an extremely hazardous substance or mixture containing extremely hazardous substances in a quantity equal to or greater than the state threshold quantity specified in Health and Safety Code Section 25532(j), and that may impose a health or safety hazard to persons who would attend or would be employed at the school, the lead agency must consult with the affected school district or districts regarding the potential impact of the project on the school and notify the affected school district(s) of the project in writing, not less than 30 days before approval or certification of the negative declaration or EIR per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15186(b)(1)(2).
37 The Project is within 738 feet of the Happy Memories Shri’s Licensed Daycare, an early learning school and daycare. An HRA with a student analysis

34 PRC § 21083(b)(3), (d).
35 Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 516, 523. 36 Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184. 37 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2022 CEQA Guidelines, Section 5 Project-Level Air Quality Impacts, p. 5-1.

5.A.f
Packet Pg. 275
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) October 15, 2024

Page 10 ends

7507-
should therefore be prepared to comply with CEQA and to accurately disclose and mitigate the Project’s significant health risk impacts.

1. Health Risk is Not Fully Mitigated by Uniformly Applied Development Policies, Standards, and Mitigation

SWAPE found that the SDRs under the Fremont Municipal Code and the General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures do not sufficiently mitigate health risk impacts to less than significant levels.38 SWAPE found that additional mitigation is required to reduce the Project’s significant health risk impacts. In particular, SWAPE recommends the following:

Require projects to use Tier 4 Final equipment or better for all engines above 50 horsepower (hp). In the event that construction equipment cannot meet to Tier 4 Final engine certification, the Project representative or contractor must demonstrate through future study with written findings supported by substantial evidence that is approved by SCAG before using other technologies/strategies. Alternative applicable strategies may include, but would not be limited to, construction equipment with Tier 4 Interim or reduction in the number and/or horsepower rating of construction equipment and/or limiting the number of construction equipment operating at the same time. All equipment must be tuned and maintained in compliance with the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance schedule and specifications. All maintenance records for each equipment and their contractor(s) should make available for inspection and remain on-site for a period of at least two years from completion of construction, unless the individual project can demonstrate that Tier 4 engines would not be required to mitigate emissions below significance thresholds. Project sponsors should also consider including ZE/ZNE technologies where appropriate and feasible.

B. The City Cannot Rely on a Community Plan Exemption or Addendum to Approve the Project Because the Project May Result in Significant Air Quality Impacts that Are More Severe than Previously Analyzed and Require Additional Mitigation

The CEQA Checklist states that “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,

38 SWAPE Comments, p. 2.

5.A.f
Packet Pg. 276
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) October 15, 2024

Page 11 ends

7507-
ROG, directly emitted particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), and TACs such as diesel exhaust particulate matter.”39 The CEQA Checklist incorrectly concludes that construction emissions associated with the Project would not exceed the BAAQMD’s thresholds for ROG, NOX, exhaust PM10, and exhaust PM2.5 emissions.”40 This statement is not supported by substantial evidence. SWAPE calculated that Project construction DPM emissions may exceed BAAQMD thresholds and result in significant environmental impacts and public health impacts.41 SWAPE found that construction emissions would therefore result in significant, unmitigated impacts on the nearby daycare, and that, when combined with operational emissions, result in significant unmitigated impacts that are not fully reduced by reliance on the SDR’s or General Plan mitigation measures.

The General Plan EIR concluded that air quality impacts would be significant and unavoidable, even with implementation of General Plan MM AIR-

3. 42 The City therefore has a duty to consider and implement additional feasible mitigation to further reduce significant air quality impacts from the Project.43 Moreover, SWAPE concludes that the combination of MM AIR-3 and Fremont Municipal Code Section 18.218.050 does not fully mitigate the Project’s air quality and health risk impacts. The City therefore cannot rely on CEQA exemptions and must prepare a project-level EIR to disclose and further mitigate these impacts.

The CEQA Checklist provides that “FMC Section 18.218.050(a) (which supersedes General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure AIR-3) would require the implementation of the BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures to incorporate best management practices (BMPs) in order to ensure construction fugitive dust impacts would be at a less-than-significant level. Therefore, additional project-specific mitigation is not required. As such, construction of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or State AAQS.”
44 However, the City’s exclusive reliance on Fremont Municipal Code Section

18.218.050(a) does not result in fully mitigated impacts. The City must therefore implement additional measures from General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure

39 CEQA Checklist, p. 22.
40 Id.
41 SWAPE Comments, p. 3.
42 CEQA Checklist, p. 16.
43 Covington v. Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control Dist. (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 867, 883. 44 Id.

5.A.f
Packet Pg. 277
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) October 15, 2024

Page 12 ends

7507-
Mitigation AIR-3 as part of the Project’s Conditions of Approval, and must consider additional feasible mitigation.

Mitigation Measure AIR-3 requires applicants to “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:

• 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.
• Cover all hauling trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • 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.
• Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. • Suspend construction activities that cause visible dust plumes to extend beyond the construction site.
• Post a publicly-visible sign(s) 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. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

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

5.A.f
Packet Pg. 278
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) October 15, 2024

Page 13 ends

7507-
reduction compared to the most recent CARB fleet average for the year 2011 .
• 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. 45 Mitigation Measure AIR-3 adds additional community public health and air quality protections above and beyond what Fremont Municipal Code Section

18.218.050(a). Fremont Municipal Code Section 18.218.050(a) requires only the following:

(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 miles per hour. (E) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading, unless seeding or soil binders are used.
(F) Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or by reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by California airborne toxics control measure 22 City of Fremont Title 13, Section 2485 of the California Code of Regulations). 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 also shall be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

45 GP MM AIR-3 also contains a signage and 5-minute idling restriction which would not apply here since Municipal Code Section 18.218.050(a)(2)(I) replaced this less stringent measure with a 2- minute idling requirement.

5.A.f
Packet Pg. 279
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) October 15, 2024

Page 14 ends

7507-
(I) Idling time of diesel-powered construction equipment shall be limited to two minutes.
(J) The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment (more than 50 horsepower) to be used in the construction project (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a project-wide fleet-average 20 percent nitrogen oxide (NOx) reduction and 45 percent particulate matter (PM) reduction compared to the most recent Air Resources Board fleet average. Acceptable options for reducing emissions include the use of late model engines, low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, 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 Air Resources Board’s most recent certification standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines.
46 Beyond these measures, the City must identify and implement additional mitigation to reduce the Project’s significant air quality and health risk impacts to the greatest extent feasible.

EBRRD recommends the Zoning Administrator revise the Conditions of Approval to add Mitigation Measure AIR-3 to adequately address the Project’s potentially significant construction air quality impacts.

C. The City Cannot Rely on a Community Plan Exemption or Addendum to Approve the Project Because the Project May Result in Significant Noise Impacts that are Peculiar to the Project and More Severe than Previously Analyzed

An EIR must be prepared because the Project results in potentially significant noise impacts, precluding reliance on a CEQA exemption. The CEQA Checklist provides that noise and vibration impacts from Project construction will

46 Fremont Municipal Code § 18.218.050(a).

5.A.f
Packet Pg. 280
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) October 15, 2024

Page 15 ends

7507-
be less than significant.47 But, the General Plan provides that “[d]ue to the density of development anticipated in Fremont, notably in the Downtown of City Center and PDAs, some of these activities may take place near sensitive areas. In these cases, the mitigation measures listed above may not be sufficient to reduce groundborne vibrations below to a level considered less than significant. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.”
48 Given the General Plan’s determination that noise and vibration impacts associated with development under the General Plan will be significant and unavoidable,
49 the City must disclose this as a significant Project impact in a project-level EIR and must implement all feasible mitigation to reduce the impact to the greatest extent feasible.5051 This will necessarily require implementation of General Plan Mitigation Measure NOI-1 through NOI-5 to reduce the Project’s potentially significant construction noise and vibration impacts, as well as consideration of additional mitigation to reduce noise and vibration impacts to the greatest extent feasible.

General Plan Mitigation Measure Impact NOI-2 provides that “[m]ethods available to mitigate project-generated noise level increases would need to be studied on a case-by-case basis. Noise reduction methods could include the following: • New or larger noise barriers or other noise reduction techniques could be constructed to protect sensitive outdoor use areas and existing residential land uses where reasonable and feasible. Final design of such barriers should be completed during project level review.”
52 This demonstrates that noise impacts
under the General Plan EIR were not analyzed on a project level. Such analysis must be included in an EIR before the Project can lawfully be approved.

A. The City Cannot Rely on A CEQA Exemption to Approve the Project Because the Project Has Significant Cumulative GHG Impacts

An EIR must be prepared and an exemption is improper, where, as here, the Project and successive projects of the same type in the same place will result in

47 CEQA Checklist, p. 67.
48 Fremont Draft General Plan Update EIR State Clearinghouse Number: 2010082060 (July 2011), p. 2-26.
49 Id.
50 Covington 43 Cal.App.5th at 883.
51 The City’s failure to implement Mitigation Measures NOI-1 through NOI-5 also results in nonconformance with the General Plan.
52 Fremont Draft General Plan Update EIR State Clearinghouse Number: 2010082060 (July 2011), p. 6-19.

5.A.f
Packet Pg. 281
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) October 15, 2024

Page 16 ends

7507-
cumulative impacts.53 SWAPE concludes that the Project may result in significant greenhouse gas (“GHG”) impacts and that the CEQA Checklist does not provide substantial evidence that the Project is consistent with the Climate Action Plan.54 SWAPE confirmed that the Project Design Features would not adequately reduce the Project’s greenhouse gas emissions impacts to less than significant levels.55 Project GHG impacts may therefore be more severe than analyzed in the 2011 General Plan EIR and require analysis and mitigation in an EIR before the Project can lawfully be approved.

The 2011 General Plan EIR identifies potentially significant environmental impacts in the topics of Transportation and Circulation, Cultural and Archaeological Resources, Air Quality, Agricultural Resources, Noise, Utilities and Service Systems, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Global Climate Change.

Mitigation were identified to reduce all potentially significant effects to a less-than- significant level, except for the following:

• Unacceptable levels of service at specified intersections and on specified roadway segments
• Air quality emissions and Clean Air Plan consistency
• Noise increases related to traffic, and noise conflicts of incompatible uses and construction noise
• Potential demolition of cultural and historic resources • Loss or conversion of prime or unique farmland to urban uses, and • Cumulative greenhouse gas emissions
56 As demonstrated in SWAPE’s comments, absent additional mitigation, the Project will contribute to and exacerbate impacts from cumulative greenhouse gas emissions. The 2011 General Plan concluded that development under the General Plan will result in potentially significant, unmitigated cumulative greenhouse gas emissions, for which no mitigation would fully reduce the significant impacts. 57 Here, the Project’s increased contribution to the General Plan’s significant exceedances of cumulative greenhouse gas emissions is a project-level impact that is peculiar to the Project site, was not analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and will result in more severe GHG impacts than previously contemplated. These project- specific impacts must be analyzed in a project-level EIR.

53 14 CCR § 15300.2.
54 SWAPE Comments, p. 8.
55 Id.
56 Fremont, Resolution 2011-68 – CEQA Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations & Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Adoption, (Dec. 2011). 57 Id. at 13.

5.A.f
Packet Pg. 282
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) October 15, 2024

Page 17 ends

7507-

IV. THE CITY CANNOT MAKE THE NECESSARY FINDINGS TO
APPROVE THE PROJECT’S ENTITLEMENTS

In order to approve a discretionary Design Review Permit, the Zoning Administrator must make the following findings:

(a) The proposed project is consistent with the general plan, any applicable community or specific plan, planning and zoning regulations, and any adopted design rules and guidelines;
(b) When a proposed project is inconsistent with an adopted design rule, the purpose and intent of the design rule is met through alternative means; (c) The multifamily residential1 project’s architectural, site, and landscape design will not be detrimental to the public health or safety; or a nonmultifamily project’s architectural, site, and landscape design will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of adjacent development nor be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. 58 As detailed herein, and in the expert consultant reports attached, the Project will result in a detriment to the public health and safety, due to the Project’s significant, unmitigated health risk and cancer risk impacts to nearby sensitive receptors including residences and a daycare within 738 feet of the Project site. The Zoning Administrator cannot make the necessary findings to approve the Project given the Projects significant detriment to the public health and safety and welfare.

Further, the Project is zoned P-81-15 and P-81-15B within the Ardenwood Planned District. But the CEQA Checklist includes no analysis of the Project’s conformity with the Ardenwood Planned District zoning requirements. The CEQA Checklist does not provide clarification whether the Project is required to conform with the Ardenwood Technology Park Planned District Rezoning Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2015052052) nor the Ardenwood Technology Park Planned District Amendment Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2015052052). The Zoning Administrator must determine the Project substantially complies with these zoning requirements and community plans before the Project can lawfully be approved.

V. CONCLUSION

58 Fremont Municipal Code § 18.235.060 (emphasis added).

5.A.f
Packet Pg. 283
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) October 15, 2024

Page 18 ends

7507-
The Zoning Administrator lacks substantial evidence to rely on a CEQA exemption for Project approval. The Project results in potentially significant impacts which are peculiar to the Project and not fully mitigated by mitigation measures under the General Plan EIR or FMC SDR’s. The Project cannot be approved until the City complies with CEQA and prepares an Initial Study and an EIR for the Project.

Sincerely,

Kelilah D. Federman

:kdf

5.A.f
Packet Pg. 284
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal)

EXHIBIT A

5.A.f
Packet Pg. 285
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal)

2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
[email protected]
October 14, 2024
Kelilah Federman
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Blvd #1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Subject: Comments on the Ardenwood Warehouse Project
Dear Ms. Federman,
We have reviewed the Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Memorandum (“Memo”) for the Ardenwood Warehouse Project (“Project”) located in the City of Fremont (“City”). The Project proposes to construct 450,420-square-feet (“SF”) of commercial space and 1,378 parking spaces on the 24.2-acre site.

Our review concludes that the Memo fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s health risk and greenhouse gas impacts. As a result, emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project may be underestimated and inadequately addressed. A full CEQA analysis should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality and greenhouse gas impacts that the project may have.

Air Quality
Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The Memo conducts a health risk analysis (“HRA”) evaluating impacts as a result of exposure to diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) emissions from Project construction. Specifically, the Memo estimates that, after the implementation of Mitigation Measure (“MM”) AQ-1, the maximum cancer risk posed to nearby, existing residential sensitive receptors as a result of Project construction would be 2.17 in one million, which would not exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (“BAAQMD”) significance threshold of 10 in one million (see excerpt below) (p. 33, Table D).

5.A.f
Packet Pg. 286
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) 2 The Memo, however, fails to address the DPM impacts or evaluate the health risks associated with Project operation. The Memo’s evaluation of the Project’s potential health risk impacts, as well as the subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, lacks adequate support.

Regarding the Project’s impacts due to exposure to construction related DPM emissions, the Memo asserts that “the project would not be a source of substantial emissions” (p. 33). By not preparing a quantified operational HRA, however, the Project is inconsistent with to California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)’s requirement to make “a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences.”1 Additionally, the Project is inconsistent with the California Department of Justice (“CA DOJ”), which recommends that all warehouse projects prepare a quantitative HRA in accordance with the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California. 2 Furthermore, although the Memo includes a construction HRA assessing health risk impacts to nearby existing receptors, it fails to evaluate the combined lifetime cancer risk to these receptors from both Project construction and operation. According to OEHHA guidance, “the excess cancer risk is calculated separately for each age grouping and then summed to yield cancer risk at the receptor location.” 3 The
Memo’s HRA fails to sum each age bin to evaluate the total cancer risk over the course of the Project’s total construction and operation. An updated analysis should prepared to quantify the sum of the Project’s construction and operational health risks and compare it to the BAAQMD threshold of 10 in one million, as referenced by the Memo (p. 71, Table 3-4).

Screening-Level Analysis Demonstrates Potentially Significant Health Risk Impact We prepared a screening-level risk assessment using AERSCREEN, a screening level air quality dispersion model.4 AERSCREEN utilizes a limited amount of site-specific information to generate maximum

1 “Sierra Club v. County of Fresno.” Supreme Court of California, December 2018, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/decisions/1907/Sierra%20Club%20v.%20County%20of%20Fresno.pdf. 2 “Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.” CA DOJ, available at: https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/environment/warehouse-best- practices.pdf, p. 6.
3 “Guidance Manual for preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf p. 8-4 4 “Air Quality Dispersion Modeling - Screening Models,” U.S. EPA, available at: https://www.epa.gov/scram/air- quality-dispersion-modeling-screening-models.

5.A.f
Packet Pg. 287
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) 3 reasonable downwind concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed. If an unacceptable air quality hazard is determined to be possible using AERSCREEN, a more refined modeling approach should be conducted prior to the approval of the Project.

We prepared a preliminary HRA of the Project’s construction and operational health risk impact to residential sensitive receptors using the annual PM2.5 exhaust estimates from the Memo’s CalEEMod output files. Consistent with recommendations set forth by OEHHA, we assumed residential exposure begins during the third trimester stage of life.5 The Memo’s CalEEMod model indicates that construction activities will generate approximately 267 pounds of DPM over the 723-day construction period.6 The AERSCREEN model relies on a continuous average emission rate to simulate maximum downward concentrations from point, area, and volume emission sources. To account for the variability in equipment usage and truck trips over Project construction, we calculated an average DPM emission rate by the following equation:

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 �𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠� = 266.8 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝐸𝐸
732 𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑𝐸𝐸 × 453.6 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝐸𝐸 × 1 𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑
24 ℎ𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔𝐸𝐸 × 1 ℎ𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔
3,600 𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒈𝒈/𝒔𝒔
Using this equation, we estimated a construction emission rate of 0.00191 grams per second (“g/s”).

Subtracting the 732-day construction period from the total residential duration of 30 years, we assumed that after Project construction, the sensitive receptor would be exposed to the Project’s operational DPM for an additional 27.99 years. The Memo’s operational CalEEMod emissions indicate that operational activities will generate approximately 80 pounds of DPM per year throughout operation.

Applying the same equation used to estimate the construction DPM rate, we estimated the following emission rate for Project operation:

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 �𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠� = 80 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝐸𝐸
365 𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑𝐸𝐸 × 453.6 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝐸𝐸 × 1 𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑
24 ℎ𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔𝐸𝐸 × 1 ℎ𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔
3,600 𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒈𝒈/𝒔𝒔

Using this equation, we estimated an operational emission rate of 0.00115 g/s. Construction and operation were simulated as a 24.2-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN, with approximate dimensions of 443- by 221-meters. A release height of three meters was selected to represent the height of stacks of operational equipment and other heavy-duty vehicles, and an initial vertical dimension of one and a half meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon release.

A rural meteorological setting was selected with model-default inputs for wind speed and direction distribution. The population of Fremont was obtained from U.S. 2022 Census data.7 The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single-hour DPM concentrations from the Project Site. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“U.S. EPA”) suggests that the

5 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-18. 6 See Attachment A for health risk calculations.
7 “Fremont.” U.S. Census Bureau, 2022, available at: https://datacommons.org/place/geoId/0626000.

5.A.f
Packet Pg. 288
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) 4 annualized average concentration of an air pollutant be estimated by multiplying the single-hour concentration by 10% in screening procedures.8 Regarding sensitive receptors, the Memo states:
“The proposed project site is located in an urban area in close proximity to existing residential uses that could be exposed to diesel emission exhaust during the construction period” (p. 31).

Review of Google Earth shows that the nearest residential sensitive receptors are residences and the "Happy Memories Shri's Licensed Daycare" located adjacent to the Project site (see screenshot below).

The maximally exposed individual resident (“MEIR”), however, is located approximately 225 meters downwind of the Project site. Consequently, the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for Project construction is approximately 1.392 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 225 meters downwind.

Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.139 µg/m3 for Project construction at the MEIR. For Project operation, the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN is 0.5569 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 225 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.0557 µg/m3 for Project operation at the MEIR.9

8 “Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources Revised.” U.S. EPA, October 1992, available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/documents/epa-454r-92-019_ocr.pdf. 9 See Attachment B for AERSCREEN output files.

5.A.f
Packet Pg. 289
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) 5 We calculated the excess cancer risk to the MEIR using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by OEHHA, as recommended by BAAQMD.10 Specifically, guidance from OEHHA and the California Air Resources Board recommends the use of a standard point estimate approach, including high-point estimate (i.e. 95th percentile) breathing rates and age sensitivity factors (“ASF”) in order to account for the increased sensitivity to carcinogens during early-in-life exposure and accurately assess risk for susceptible subpopulations such as children. The residential exposure parameters, such as the daily breathing rates (“BR/BW”), exposure duration (“ED”), age sensitivity factors (“ASF”), fraction of time at home (“FAH”), and exposure frequency (“EF”) utilized for the various age groups in our screening-level HRA are as follows:

10 “California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.” BAAQMD, May 2017, available at:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en, p. 56; see also “Health Risk Screening and Modeling” BAAQMD, available at: https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and- climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/ceqa-tools/health-risk-screening-and-modeling

5.A.f
Packet Pg. 290
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) 6 Exposure Assumptions for Residential Individual Cancer Risk Age Group
Breathing
Rate
(L/kg-day)11
Age
Sensitivity
Factor12
Exposure
Duration
(years)
Fraction of
Time at
Home13
Exposure
Frequency
(days/year)14
Exposure
Time
(hours/day)
3rd Trimester 361 10 0.25 0.85 350 24
Infant (0 – 2) 1090 10 2 0.85 350 24
Child (2 – 16) 572 3 14 0.72 350 24
Adult (16 – 30) 261 1 14 0.73 350 24
For the inhalation pathway, the procedure requires the incorporation of several discrete variates to effectively quantify dose for each age group. Once determined, contaminant dose is multiplied by the cancer potency factor (“CPF”) in units of inverse dose expressed in milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg/day-1) to derive the cancer risk estimate. Therefore, to assess exposures, we utilized the following dose algorithm:

𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴,,𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝 𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑝𝑝 = 𝐶𝐶𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝 × 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 × � 𝐵𝐵𝑅𝑅 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵� × 𝐴𝐴 × 𝐶𝐶𝐸𝐸
where:

DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group Cair = concentration of contaminant in air (μg/m3)
EF = exposure frequency (number of days/365 days)
BR/BW = daily breathing rate normalized to body weight (L/kg/day)

11 “Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment Guidelines.” BAAQMD, December 2016, available at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/permit- modeling/hra_guidelines_12_7_2016_clean-
pdf.pdf?la=en#:~:text=To%20assess%20potential%20inhalation%20exposure%20to%20offsite%20workers%2C%20 OEHHA%20recommended,for%20an%20eight%2Dhour%20day, p. 6; see also “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 12 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-5 Table 8.3. 13 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 5-24; see also: “Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment Guidelines.” BAAQMD, December 2016, available at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/permit- modeling/hra_guidelines_12_7_2016_clean-
pdf.pdf?la=en#:~:text=To%20assess%20potential%20inhalation%20exposure%20to%20offsite%20workers%2C%20 OEHHA%20recommended,for%20an%20eight%2Dhour%20day, p. 4, 5. 14 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 5-24.

5.A.f
Packet Pg. 291
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) 7 A = inhalation absorption factor (default = 1)
CF = conversion factor (1x10-6, μg to mg, L to m3)
To calculate the overall cancer risk, we used the following equation for each appropriate age group:

𝐶𝐶𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑔𝑔 𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 = 𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 × 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐸𝐸 × 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐸𝐸 × 𝐸𝐸𝐴𝐴𝐹𝐹 × 𝐸𝐸𝐷𝐷 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
where:

DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group CPF = cancer potency factor, chemical-specific (mg/kg/day)-1 ASF = age sensitivity factor, per age group
FAH = fraction of time at home, per age group (for residential receptors only) ED = exposure duration (years)
AT = averaging time period over which exposure duration is averaged (always 70 years) Consistent with the 732-day construction schedule, the annualized average concentration for operation was used for the remainder of the 30-year exposure period, which makes up the latter 1.76 years of the infant stage of life, the entire child stage of life (2 – 16 years), and the entire adult stage of life (16 – 30 years). The results of our calculations are shown in the table below.

The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor Age Group Emissions Source Duration (years) Concentration (ug/m3) Cancer Risk
3rd Trimester Construction 0.25 0.1392 1.61E-06
Construction 1.76 0.1392 3.41E-05
Operation 0.24 0.0555 1.89E-06
Infant (0 - 2) Total 2 3.60E-05
Child (2 - 16) Operation 14 0.0555 1.45E-05
Adult (16 - 30) Operation 14 0.0555 2.23E-06
Lifetime 30 5.43E-05
As demonstrated in the table above, the excess cancer risks for infants, children, and adults at the MEIR located approximately 225 meters away, over the course of Project operation, are approximately 1.61,

36.0, 14.5, and 2.23 in one million, respectively. The excess cancer risk associated with Project operation is approximately 54.3 in one million. As such, the lifetime cancer risk exceeds the BAAQMD threshold of

5.A.f
Packet Pg. 292
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) 8 10 in one million, resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the Memo.

The purpose of the screening-level construction and operational HRA shown above is to demonstrate the link between the proposed Project’s emissions and the potential health risk. Our screening-level HRA demonstrates that construction and operation of the Project could result in a potentially significant health risk impact, when correct exposure assumptions and up-to-date, applicable guidance are used.

Therefore, since our screening-level HRA indicates a potentially significant impact, a full CEQA analysis should be prepared and include updated, quantified air pollution model as well as an updated, quantified refined HRA which adequately and accurately evaluates health risk impacts associated with both Project construction and operation.

Greenhouse Gas
Failure to Adequately Evaluate Greenhouse Gas Impacts
The Memo relies upon the Project’s consistency with the City’s Climate Action Plan (“CAP”) in order to conclude a less-than-significant greenhouse gas (“GHG”) impact (p. 36 – 39, Table F) (see excerpt below).

Note: The table has been redacted for the viewer’s convenience.

The Memo consequently concludes:
“As demonstrated in Table F 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” (p. 36 – 39).

The Memo, however, fails to adequately demonstrate that the Project would be consistent with the City’s CAP. While the Memo claims that the Project would be consistent with the City’s CAP by implementing the project design features (“PDFs”), we are unable to verify that the above-mentioned

5.A.f
Packet Pg. 293
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) 9 PDFs would be adequately implemented into the Project’s design. According to the Association of Environmental Professionals (“AEP”) CEQA Portal Topic Paper on Mitigation Measures:
“While not ‘mitigation’, a good practice is to include those project design feature(s) that address environmental impacts in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP). Often the MMRP is all that accompanies building and construction plans through the permit process. If the design features are not listed as important to addressing an environmental impact, it is easy for someone not involved in the original environmental process to approve a change to the project that could eliminate one or more of the design features without understanding the resulting environmental impact.”
PDF’s that are not formally included in a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (“MMRP”) may be eliminated from the Project’s design altogether. As the above-mentioned measures from the City’s CAP are not formally included as mitigation measures, we are unable to guarantee that they will be adequately implemented, monitored, and enforced on the Project site. The Memo does not correctly demonstrate that the Project would be consistent with the City’s CAP, and the unsupported GHG analysis should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Mitigation
Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions According to CEQA Guidelines § 15096(g)(2):
“When an updated EIR has been prepared for a project, the Responsible Agency shall not approve the project as proposed if the agency finds any feasible alternative or feasible mitigation measures within its powers that would substantially lessen or avoid any significant effect the project would have on the environment.”
The City is consequently required under CEQA to implement all feasible mitigation to reduce the Project’s potential impacts. As demonstrated in the sections above, the Project would result in potentially significant health risk impacts that should be mitigated further.

In order to reduce the DPM emissions associated with Project construction and operation, we recommend the City consider several mitigation measures (see list below).

The Southern California Association of Governments (“SCAG”)’s 2020 RTP/SCS Program Environmental Impact Report (“PEIR”) Air Quality Project Level Mitigation Measures (“PMM-AQ-1”) recommends the following:
15 • Require contractors to assemble a comprehensive inventory list (i.e., make, model, engine year, horsepower, emission rates) of all heavy-duty off-road (portable and mobile) equipment (50

15 “4.0 Mitigation Measures.” Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report Addendum #1, September 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/fpeir_connectsocal_addendum_4_mitigationmeasures.pdf?1606004420, p. 4.0-2 – 4.0-10; 4.0-19 –

4.0-23; See also: “Certified Final Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report.” SCAG, May 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/peir.

5.A.f
Packet Pg. 294
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) 10 horsepower and greater) that could be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours for the construction project.
• Utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary power generators.
• Develop a traffic plan to minimize community impacts as a result of traffic flow interference from construction activities. The plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation, and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service. Schedule operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours. Minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes. Provide a flag person to guide traffic properly and ensure safety at construction sites. Project sponsors should consider developing a goal for the minimization of community impacts. • Require projects to use Tier 4 Final equipment or better for all engines above 50 horsepower (hp). In the event that construction equipment cannot meet to Tier 4 Final engine certification, the Project representative or contractor must demonstrate through future study with written findings supported by substantial evidence that is approved by SCAG before using other technologies/strategies. Alternative applicable strategies may include, but would not be limited to, construction equipment with Tier 4 Interim or reduction in the number and/or horsepower rating of construction equipment and/or limiting the number of construction equipment operating at the same time. All equipment must be tuned and maintained in compliance with the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance schedule and specifications. All maintenance records for each equipment and their contractor(s) should make available for inspection and remain on-site for a period of at least two years from completion of construction, unless the individual project can demonstrate that Tier 4 engines would not be required to mitigate emissions below significance thresholds. Project sponsors should also consider including ZE/ZNE technologies where appropriate and feasible.
• Provide traffic calming measures, such as:
o Marked crosswalks,
o Count-down signal timers,
o Curb extensions,
o Raised crosswalks,
o Raised intersections,
o Median islands,
o Tight corner radii,
o Roundabouts or mini-circles, and
o On-street parking Chicanes/chokers.
• Create urban non-motorized zones.

Under Mitigation Measure AIR-3, the General Plan requires additional measures beyond those detailed in Fremont Municipal Code Section 18.218.050(a). The following mitigation measures should be included to reduce the Projects potentially significant DPM emissions.

• Additional Measures to Reduce Diesel Particulate Matter and PM2.5 and other construction emissions:

5.A.f
Packet Pg. 295
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) 11 • 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
• The contractor shall install temporary electrical service whenever possible to avoid the need for independently powered equipment (e.g. compressors).

The CalEEMod User’s Guide confirms that the methods for mitigating DPM emissions include the use of “alternative fuel, electric equipment, diesel particulate filters (DPF), oxidation catalysts, newer tier engines, and dust suppression.”16
As demonstrated above, we have provided several mitigation measures that would reduce Project- related DPM emissions. These measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower- emitting design features into the proposed Project, which subsequently reduce emissions released during Project construction and operation.

A full CEQA analysis should be prepared that includes all feasible mitigation measures, as well as updated health risk analysis to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce emissions to the maximum extent feasible. The Memo should also demonstrate a commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the Project’s potentially significant emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible.

Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.

Sincerely,

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

16 “Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, May 2021, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/user-guide-2021/appendix-a2020-4-0.pdf?sfvrsn=6, Appendix A, p. 60.

5.A.f
Packet Pg. 296
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal)

SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: [email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 10 October 2021
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.

M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.

B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment.

Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years’ experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.

Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, industrial, military and agricultural sources, unconventional oil drilling operations, and locomotive and construction engines. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has also successfully modeled exposure to contaminants distributed by water systems and via vapor intrusion.

Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, creosote, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at sites and has testified as an expert witness on numerous cases involving exposure to soil, water and air contaminants from industrial, railroad, agricultural, and military sources.

Attachment B 5.A.f
Packet Pg. 297
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal)

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 10 October 2021

Professional History:

Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist

Publications:

Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48

Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342

Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.

Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.

Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.

Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.

5.A.f
Packet Pg. 298
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal)

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 10 October 2021

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530.

Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.

Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.

Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.

Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178.

Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.

Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.

5.A.f
Packet Pg. 299
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal)

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 10 October 2021

Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.

Presentations:

Rosenfeld, P.E., "The science for Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFAS): What makes remediation so hard?" Law Seminars International, (May 9-10, 2018) 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101 Seattle, WA.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.

Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water.

Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International

5.A.f
Packet Pg. 300
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal)

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 10 October 2021

Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference.

Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.

Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.

5.A.f
Packet Pg. 301
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal)

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 October 2021

Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.

Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.

Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.

Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington..

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.

5.A.f
Packet Pg. 302
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal)

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 10 October 2021

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Teaching Experience:

UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants.

National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks.

National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.

California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.

UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.

University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.

U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.

Academic Grants Awarded:

California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.

Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.

Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.

Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.

King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.

James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.

5.A.f
Packet Pg. 303
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal)

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 October 2021

United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995.

Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993

Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:

In the Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 5-14-2021
Trial, October 8-4-2021

In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Rafferty, Plaintiff vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a AMTRAK,
Case No.: No. 18-L-6845
Rosenfeld Deposition, 6-28-2021

In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois Theresa Romcoe, Plaintiff vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA Rail, Defendants
Case No.: No. 17-cv-8517
Rosenfeld Deposition, 5-25-2021

In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the Cunty of Maricopa Mary Tryon et al., Plaintiff vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc.

Case Number CV20127-094749
Rosenfeld Deposition: 5-7-2021

In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division Robinson, Jeremy et al Plaintiffs, vs. CNA Insurance Company et al.

Case Number 1:17-cv-000508
Rosenfeld Deposition: 3-25-2021

In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Gary Garner, Personal Representative for the Estate of Melvin Garner vs. BNSF Railway Company.

Case No. 1720288
Rosenfeld Deposition 2-23-2021

In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Spring Street Courthouse Benny M Rodriguez vs. Union Pacific Railroad, A Corporation, et al.

Case No. 18STCV01162
Rosenfeld Deposition 12-23-2020

In the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri
Karen Cornwell, Plaintiff, vs. Marathon Petroleum, LP, Defendant.

Case No.: 1716-CV10006
Rosenfeld Deposition. 8-30-2019

In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.

Case No.: 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition. 6-7-2019

5.A.f
Packet Pg. 304
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal)

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 10 October 2021

In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk, Plaintiffs, vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant.

Case No.: 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237 Rosenfeld Deposition. 5-9-2019

In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition, 1-26-2019

In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19

In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiff vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case No.: 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition, 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018

In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No.: 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-17-2017

In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintiffs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-20-2017

In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-23-2017

In United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi Guy Manuel vs. The BP Exploration et al., Defendants
Case: No 1:19-cv-00315-RHW
Rosenfeld Deposition, 4-22-2020

In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No.: LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018

In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2017

5.A.f
Packet Pg. 305
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal)

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 October 2021

In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial, March 2017

In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No.: RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition, September 2015

In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No.: LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015

In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.

Civil Action N0. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015

In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015

In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.

Case Number CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014

In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.

Case Number cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012

In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant.

Civil Action Number 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2010, June 2011

In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Jaeanette Moss Anthony, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Drummond Company Inc., et al., Defendants Civil Action No. CV 2008-2076
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2010

In the United States District Court, Western District Lafayette Division Ackle et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants.

Case Number 2:07CV1052
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2009

5.A.f
Packet Pg. 306
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 4 - Zoning Administrator Appeal Letter (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) Planning Commission
February 13, 2025

Page 1 ends

Proposal: ARDENWOOD AT PASEO APPEAL — 6200 Paseo Padre Parkway - PLN2025-00087 - To consider a third -party Appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s approval of a Discretionary Design Review Permit and Floor Area Ratio increase (under PLN2022 - 00466) to allow a proposed five -building light -industrial/R&D project consisting of approximately 407,250 square feet of new development, plus renovation of an existing 43,172 -square-foot light-industrial/R&D building, on the site bounded by Paseo Padre Parkway, Ardenwood B oulevard, and Commerce Drive in the North Fremont Community Plan Area; and to consider an exemption from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, as the project is consistent with the Ge neral Plan, for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
(SCH#2010082060) was previously prepared and certified, and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, as none of the circumstances requiring preparation of a subsequent or
supplemental EIR have occ urred. Each of the foregoing
provides a separate and independent basis for CEQA
compliance.

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

Location: 6100 Paseo Padre Parkway, APN 543-439-125 6200 Paseo Padre Parkway, APN 543-439-148
Unaddressed parcel, APN 543-439-35
Unaddressed parcel, APN 543-439-127
People: Kelilah Federman, East Bay Residents for Responsible Development, Applicant
Gavin Christensen, Owner
Marc Cleveland, Staff Planner (510) 494-4543;
[email protected]

General Plan: Tech Industrial

Zoning: P-81-15 (Ardenwood Planned District)

5.A.g
Packet Pg. 307
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5363) Meeting of February 13, 2025 ARDENWOOD @ PASEO APPEAL PLN2025-00087 Page 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The Planning Commission is being asked to consider a third -party Appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s action of October 15, 2024, to approve a Discretionary Design Review permit and a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) increase in conjunction with development of five new industrial buildings and the renovation of an existing industrial build ing on 24.2 acres of land in P -81-15, the Ardenwood Planned District. The project’s southern lot would have a

0.51 FAR that exceeds the maximum 0.35 FAR standard applicable to Tech Industrial - designated lots occupied by light-industrial/R&D uses.

Staff recommends the Planning Commission find that the Appeal, which was filed by Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo during the 10 -day appeal period that followed the Zoning Administrator’s action and challenges the project approval on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) grounds, lacks merit and that the evidence in the record supports the use of a streamlining exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.

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

BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS ACTIONS:

Site Development/Improvements
The site was historically used for agricultural purposes unti l 1985, when the 43,172-square- foot building at 6200 Paseo Padre Parkway was constructed. Initially used for the design and production of communications systems, the building has been used as a solar panel R&D facility from 2010 to present day. Since 2011, the 6100 Paseo Padre Parkway parcel and the unaddressed vacant parcel at the southern end of the site have been used as a commercial solar farm operated by the 6200 Paseo Padre Parkway tenant (Nextracker). All other project site land sits vacant.

Planned District P -81-15 was approved by the City Council in December 1981 for the development of the project originally referred to as Ardenwood Forest – New Town. As originally planned, Ardenwood Forest – New Town was to include facilities for living, working, shopping, and recreation. The plan called for approximately 3,800 dwelling units, 280 acres of high -technology industrial business park, 37 acres of commercial uses, and 105 acres for schools, parks, and open spaces. Much of the plan has been implemented ; the project would infill a significant portion of the planned yet unbuilt industrial area.

In February 2006, the City Council amended P -81-15 to allow an increase in the maximum building height to 75 feet (from 45 feet) on lands bounded by Paseo Padre P arkway, Ardenwood Boulevard, and State Route 84, an area which includes the project site. The City Council further amended the planned district in September 2016 by tying land use allowances within the planned district’s Tech Industrial -designated areas to the land use allowances of the I -T (Tech Industrial) zoning district, as set forth in Fremont Municipal Code Table 18.50.090.

5.A.g
Packet Pg. 308
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5363) Meeting of February 13, 2025 ARDENWOOD @ PASEO APPEAL PLN2025-00087 Page 3

Zoning Administrator Hearing and Appeal Filing

On October 15, 2024, the Ardenwood at Paseo project (PLN2022 -00466) was presented at a noticed Zoning Administrator public hearing. Following a presentation from staff that included a project approval recommendation, two members of the public spoke on the item.

Both speakers were opposed to the project. One speaker raised concerns abo ut the project’s potential to negatively impact public safety, and Kelilah Federman from Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo representing East Bay Residents for Responsible Development (Appellant) challenged staff’s finding that the project is not subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. After considering testimony and the whole of the record, the Zoning Administrator approved the project, as conditioned.

On October 23, 2024, within the post -action 10 -day appeal peri od, the Appellant filed a qualifying third-party Appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s approval action. Within the letter that accompanied the Appeal application (Informational Item No. 2), the Appellant makes a number of assertions, including:

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

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

3. The project may result in new and significant air quality impacts on nearby sensitive receptors;

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

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

PROCEDURE FOR TONIGHT’S HEARING:

The Planning Commission is being asked to consider the following:

1. A finding that the proposed project is not subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, as the project is consistent with the density established by the General Plan, for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH#2010082060) was previously prepared and certified, and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 151 64, as none of the circumstances requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR have occurred;

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

5.A.g
Packet Pg. 309
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5363) Meeting of February 13, 2025 ARDENWOOD @ PASEO APPEAL PLN2025-00087 Page 4

3. A finding that the proposed project’s removal of 372 private protected trees enables a reasonable and conforming use of the property.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

The project would complete development of the six -parcel site that’s located at the north end of the planned district’s industrially -focused area. As proposed, the southern portion of the site along Commerce Drive would be developed with two (2) two -story light-industrial buildings, both measuring 75,112 square feet, and one (1) three -story, 91,162-square-foot light-industrial building. The two -story buildings would stand 36’ -6” tall and the three -story building would stand 51’ -6” in height. The site’s Paseo Padre Parkway frontage would be developed with two (2) two-story light -industrial buildings. The building proposed at the southern end of the frontage would measure 75,112 square feet in size and the building proposed at the northern end of the frontage would measure 90,750 square feet. Both buildings would s tand 36’-6” in height. Situated between these two buildings is an existing one-story light -industrial building (6200 Paseo Padre Parkway) measuring 43,172 square feet that would be renovated but not expanded. Two existing light -industrial buildings located adjacent to the project along the Ardenwood Boulevard frontage (34175 and 34325 Ardenwood Boulevard) would remain unmodified.

A total of 1,403 vehicle parking spaces would be provided for the project. These parking spaces would be located in a contiguous surface parking lot that covers the non-building and landscape areas of the site. Of these spaces, 145 would be equipped with electric vehicle charging stations. The project would also include 79 short -term bicycle parking spaces and 61 long -term bicyc le parking spaces. Access to the site would come from two proposed curb-cuts along Commerce Drive, two existing curb -cuts along Paseo Padre Parkway, and one existing curb -cut along Ardenwood Boulevard. Existing parking areas and an Ardenwood Boulevard cu rb-cut supporting the two existing light -industrial buildings adjacent to the project site would remain unmodified by the project.

Project development would necessitate removal of 372 trees from the site. A total of 523 new trees would be planted within t he site’s perimeter landscape easement, within the proposed parking fields, and in open space amenity areas proposed adjacent to each project building.

The project would involve the combination of the site’s two southern lots (APNs 543 -439-35 and 543 -439-127) to create a single, 14.22 -acre lot. The combined southern lot would house the three new Commerce Drive buildings and the southern -most Paseo Padre Parkway building. The resulting FAR for the lot would be 0.51, which exceeds the adopted FAR maximum (0.35) for non -manufacturing or warehouse uses on Tech Industrial - designated sites. The project as a whole would have a FAR of 0.42. Pursuant to FMC Section

18.250.070, a condition of approval has been added requiring the recording of a deed restriction on the property to ensure that the use and intensity of the property remains limited to, and consistent with, project approval.

Off-site, a new six -foot-wide sidewalk would be installed along the site’s Commerce Drive frontage where no public walk current exists. The sidewalk would connect to existing sidewalks that line the site’s Paseo Padre Parkway and Ardenwood Boulevard frontages,

5.A.g
Packet Pg. 310
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5363) Meeting of February 13, 2025 ARDENWOOD @ PASEO APPEAL PLN2025-00087 Page 5
completing the pedestrian loop around this “island” of parcels. Additionally, as conditioned and found warranted based on a traffic signal analysis for general plan compliance , the project would be required to install a traffic signal at the currently -unsignalized Paseo Padre Parkway / Commerce Drive intersection that abuts the site. This requirement falls outside of the environmental review as it is triggered by the LTA and not VMT analysis.

PROJECT ANALYSIS:

General Plan Conformance:

The project site is designated Tech Industrial in the General Plan’s Land Use Element. Sites with this designation are intended for research an d development, “clean and green” tech, and semi -conductor, computer hardware, software and related technological, administrative, sales, and engineering facilities. These areas play an essential role in the Silicon Valley economy and provide a high volume of business -to-business sales tax for Fremont.

The following General Plan Policies and Goals are applicable to the proposed project:

LAND USE POLICY 2 -1.11: Infill Emphasis – Focus new development on under - developed or “skipped over” sites that are alrea dy served by infrastructure and public streets.

LAND USE GOAL 2 -2.7: Building Height and Intensity – Apply Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and building height standards in commercial, industrial, and mixed use areas which limit the intensity of development; permit FARs and heights which exceed the adopted maximums for projects which provide extraordinary benefits to the City.

LAND USE POLICY 2 -5.1: Land Supply and Job Growth – Maintain an industrial land supply that is adequate and suitable for the continued growt h of the City’s core industries, including computer and communications manufacturing, biotechnology, green technology, logistics/distribution, and emerging technologies.

LAND USE POLICY 2-5.9: Optimizing the Use of Industrial Land – Encourage more efficient and productive use of underutilized industrial land. Industrial land should be recognized as a limited resource that must be carefully managed to accommodate projected job growth and market needs.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GOAL 6 -1: A Dynamic Local Economy – Create and sustain a dynamic local economy that attracts investment, increases the tax base, generates public revenues, creates employment, provides recreational, shopping and service opportunities for residents, and maintains a balance of jobs and housing.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GOAL 6-3: A Diverse Mix of Industrial and Technology

5.A.g
Packet Pg. 311
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5363) Meeting of February 13, 2025 ARDENWOOD @ PASEO APPEAL PLN2025-00087 Page 6
Uses – Support and promote a diverse mix of industrial and technology uses to provide jobs and tax revenues for the community.

Analysis: The project constitutes an infill indus trial development on land that’s been intended for such use since 1981 and is well -served by abutting high -volume roadways and other infrastructure. Implementation of the project would strengthen the City’s industrial base, support a wide range of quality jobs, and generate a significant amount of revenue.

The project features a logical site layout, abundant perimeter landscaping, and clean, contemporary architecture with a high degree of transparency for increased compatibility with adjacent residential uses. The increased project FAR would enhance the viability of the project and contribute to greater project employment potential.

Zoning Regulations:

Per the aforementioned September 2016 amendment to P -81-15, future uses at the project site would be subj ect to the land use allowances of the I -T zoning district. The proposed project buildings and the existing building to be renovated have been designed to accommodate light -industrial/R&D uses, which are permitted uses within the I -T zoning district. Future occupants of project buildings will be evaluated individually for conformance with I-T zoning district land use regulations.

The planned district features specific development criteria that in some areas differs from citywide standards. The following tab les show project compliance with select applicable standards for the site.

Table 1—Development Standards (P-81-15 or General Plan)

Development
Standard

Requirement

Proposed Project

Complies?
Maximum FAR

0.35 (non-manufacturing or
warehouse uses)

0.30 (6100 Paseo Padre
Parkway);

0.33 (6200 Paseo Padre
Parkway; existing/no
change); and

0.51 (Southern lot)

No
(Southern
lot)
Minimum
Street Setback
25 feet 25+ feet (parking areas)
102+ feet (buildings)
Yes
Minimum
Interior Setback
20 feet 45+ feet Yes

5.A.g
Packet Pg. 312
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5363) Meeting of February 13, 2025 ARDENWOOD @ PASEO APPEAL PLN2025-00087 Page 7

Development
Standard

Requirement

Proposed Project

Complies?
Maximum
Building Height
75 feet 36’-6” – 51’-6” Yes

As shown in Table 1 above, the project would conform to applicable development standards for a new industrial project at the site with the exception of the southern lot’s FAR . Staff’s findings for the requested FAR increase can be found in the Findings for Approval section of this report.

Table 2—Automobile Parking Standards (P-81-15)

Project
Industrial
Gross Floor
Area
Industrial
Parking
Standard

Parking Spaces
Required

Parking Spaces
Proposed
Complies?
450,422 SF
One space /
450 SF

1,001
1,403 Yes

Table 3—Bicycle Parking Standards (FMC Table 18.183.135)

Bicycle
Parking Type Minimum

Parking Spaces
Required

Parking Spaces
Proposed
Complies?
Short-term
Four, plus 5%
required
automobile
parking
55 79 Yes
Long-term
One, plus 5%
required
automobile
parking
52 61 Yes

5.A.g
Packet Pg. 313
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5363) Meeting of February 13, 2025 ARDENWOOD @ PASEO APPEAL PLN2025-00087 Page 8
Per Tables 2 and 3 above, the project meets the minimum automobile and bicycle parking requirements. Automobile and short -term bicycle parking would be provided upon construction of project buildings and their related site improvements; long -term bicycle parking is proposed to be within the interior of each building and would be provided upon initial tenant improvement.

Architecture and Design:

The proposed project has been designed for consistency with the Section IV —Siting and Design Criteria of P -81-15. Additionally, the project conforms with the requirements of the Citywide Design Guidelines in that all Design Rules applicable for an industrial development have been met, including those related to site development, building design, and landscape design, and the project is in substantial conformance with the non -required Design Guidelines.

The project is laid out in a manner that creates a campus -like environment, as in tended by the planned district. A wide landscape buffer rings the site’s perimeter, and project buildings are situated such that they conceal much of the site’s interior parking areas from public view. The project’s concrete tilt -up buildings feature a con sistent, high -quality design aesthetic that incorporates high-transparency, aluminum-framed window systems and a mix of finishes that includes metal composite and corrugated panels, horizontal accent elements, and a complementary color palette to add visua l interest. Building rooftops have been designed with eight -foot-tall parapets that architecturally integrate into the building elevations. The loading and service areas of each building have been placed along their rear, concealing these areas and from pu blic view. Exterior lighting, both at each building and within the parking fields, has been designed to eliminate the potential for glare on neighboring properties.

Landscape:

The project features a comprehensive landscape design that adds to the visual q uality of the site. Project frontages feature a 20’ – 30’-foot-wide landscape easement that would be planted with a repeating pattern of spreading shade trees and row trees along the parking lot edges. Within the easement, a three -foot-tall earthen berm, p lanted with evergreen buffer shrubs, would further screen the site’s parking areas from public view. Enhanced tree and shrub plantings would be provided at each driveway entrance and at street intersections to elevate the project’s curb appeal. In total, 5 23 new tree plantings would be proposed.

Within the site’s interior, parking areas would feature landscaped medians with tree plantings to provide shading and visual relief. The front elevations of each building would feature strategically located accent and specimen trees. Outdoor employee amenity spaces are provided between each pair of project buildings. These spaces – three in total – feature accent paving, seat walls, movable furniture, and an overhead shade structure that shelters an outdoor kitchen and dining area.

The project’s conceptual landscape plan has been reviewed by a staff landscape architect and been found to be in conformance with applicable FMC provisions and to contribute to

5.A.g
Packet Pg. 314
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5363) Meeting of February 13, 2025 ARDENWOOD @ PASEO APPEAL PLN2025-00087 Page 9
project aesthetics. As selected, all proposed project plant ings would be of species having low-to-medium water demands, furthering water conservation efforts.

FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL:

Pursuant to FMC Section 18.235.060, in order to approve a Discretionary Design Review Permit, the Zoning Administrator must make the following findings:

(a) The proposed project is consistent with the general plan, any applicable community or specific plan, planning and zoning regulations, and any adopted design rules and guidelines.

Analysis: The proposed project is consistent with th e General Plan, P -81-15 standards, and the applicable Design Rules of the Citywide Design Guidelines . The project will advance the vision of the site’s planned district, which has tabbed the property to be developed as an industrial campus dating back to i ts 1981 adoption.

The project will transform an underutilized infill site with a development that’s consistent with the scale and design character sought for new industrial development within the North Fremont’s Tech Industrial-designated lands.

(b) When a pr oposed project is inconsistent with an adopted design rule, the purpose and intent of the design rule is met through alternative means; and Analysis: The proposed project is consistent with the applicable Design Rules contained within the Citywide Design G uidelines, is in substantial conformance with the same document’s Design Guidelines, and is compliant with the limited design language contained within the P -81-15 ordinance. No exceptions to adopted Design Rules are necessary for the project.

(c) The nonmul tifamily project’s architectural, site, and landscape design will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of adjacent development nor be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare; and Analysis: The proposed project’s design would n ot interfere with the use and enjoyment of adjacent development nor would it be detrimental to public health or safety because the project has been designed in a logical manner that comfortably fits within the site’s buildable envelope while providing sign ificantly increased building setbacks from all street frontages and interior property lines. The project features high -quality architecture that enhances the appearance of the site, and significant landscaping within the site frontages’ landscape easements and the introduction of a Commerce Drive sidewalk that will connect with the existing sidewalk network that wraps the site would create a safer, more pedestrian -friendly public realm. Furthermore, the proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of persons or property in the vicinity owing to its conformance with applicable Building and Fire code regulations.

5.A.g
Packet Pg. 315
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5363) Meeting of February 13, 2025 ARDENWOOD @ PASEO APPEAL PLN2025-00087 Page 10

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

Analysis: HARB review is not required for this project as it is not within a designated historic district and there are no Register or Register-eligible resources on the site.

Pursuant to FMC Section 18.250.070, the following findings are required prior to approval of an application for a FAR increase:

(a) The increase in floor area ratio will not cause the project to exceed the capacity of streets and will not adversely affect the privacy of properties in the vicinity of the project;

Analysis: A Transportation Analysis prepared for the project found that all of the signalizedintersections studied in the vicinity of the project site would maintain current level of service goals and/or not increase current delay by more than 10 seconds with project implementation. As a result, project impacts on area roadways would not be considered to have an adverse effect and capacities of area streets would not be exceeded. As part of project implementation, a traffic signal would be installed at the Paseo Padre Parkway / Commerce Drive intersection, which is currently unsignalized, in order to improve current level of service and reduce delays for project inbound and outbound vehicular movements. Though the project site is adjacent t o existing residential uses located across Ardenwood Boulevard, privacy impacts on the residences would be nonsignificant owing to at least 200 feet of separation between those existing uses and the proposed project buildings.

(b) A deed restriction approved by the city attorney shall be recorded on the property to ensure that the use of the property remains limited to that presented to the approval authority; and

Analysis: As conditioned, project implementation will be subject to a restrictive covenant and notice of land use limitation for the subject floor area ratio increase. (c) The proposed project would provide extraordinary benefits to the City.

Analysis: The proposed increase in floor area ratio is associated with an industrial project that constitutes the first viable development at the project site in the planned district’s 43 -year history. At present time, demand for industrial space (including R&D and advanced manufacturing spaces, which project buildings are design to accommodate) in Fremont is st rong, with limited availability of space and low

5.A.g
Packet Pg. 316
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5363) Meeting of February 13, 2025 ARDENWOOD @ PASEO APPEAL PLN2025-00087 Page 11
vacancy rates. The project figures to deliver high -paying jobs in professional and technical occupations and increase the City’s industrial standing in the region, which would be aided by the site’s key loca tion adjacent to State Route 84, which connects Fremont to the Bay Area’s primary cluster of innovation -oriented technology businesses. The project’s modern industrial buildings will better meet building configuration, access, and power needs of tenants co mpared to older building stock in the area. Additionally, the project will pay full -freight development impact fees and commercial linkage fees to offset the project’s potential impacts on City public facilities. The floor area ratio increase would result in a higher fee total than a project with a conforming floor area ratio.

Pursuant to FMC Section 18.215.070, the following finding is required in order to allow for the proposed removal of trees that are subject to protection under the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance:

(a) The proposed removal of protected trees would be consistent with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance.

Analysis: The removal of 372 private protected trees from the site is necessary to enable reasonable and conforming use of the pro perty as an industrial development in a campus -type setting. Redevelopment of the site with five new buildings with a combined ground floor footprint of 188,431 square feet, plus necessary parking, circulation, landscaping, storm water treatment, and other associated improvements requires their removal. The remainder of the site’s private protected trees would remain in place, and new trees, both on -site and within the adjacent right -of-way, are proposed in accordance with the City’s Landscape Development R equirements and Policies (LDRP). Of the removed trees, 209 will be mitigated. A tree mitigation fee will be collected for the 163 trees scheduled for removal that cannot be mitigated with no on-site tree plantings.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 151 62, the following findings are required for projects when an EIR has been certified for a project and no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, one or more of the following:

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

2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental

5.A.g
Packet Pg. 317
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5363) Meeting of February 13, 2025 ARDENWOOD @ PASEO APPEAL PLN2025-00087 Page 12
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or

3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonab le diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:

a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;

b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;

c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or

d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

Analysis: As documented in the CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist prepared for the project, none of the criteria list ed above has occurred. This checklist and other evidence in the record supports the use of the certified General Plan Update EIR for the project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, finding that the mitigation measures from the EIR are app lied to and adequate for the proposed project, which is within the scope of the EIR, and that no further CEQA documentation is required.

Environmental Review:

The proposed project is subject to no further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning, as the project is consistent with the General Plan for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH#2010082060) was previously prepared and certified. Please see Informational Item No. 1 – CEQA Determination for more information. Additionally, the project has been found to not trigger subsequent documentation under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 as no substantial changes are proposed in the project that would require revisions to the General Plan Update EIR, nor have substantial changes occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the proposed project would be undertaken require

5.A.g
Packet Pg. 318
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5363) Meeting of February 13, 2025 ARDENWOOD @ PASEO APPEAL PLN2025-00087 Page 13
revisions to the General Plan Update EIR, nor has new information of substantial impor tance been identified that would indicate the project would have any new or more significant effects or require new or additional mitigation than what was included in the General Plan Update EIR. The programmatic mitigation measures from the General Plan U pdate EIR and/or the standard development requirements contained within FMC Chapter 18.218 adequately address the potential environmental effects of the project. The project is thus within the scope of the General Plan Update EIR and no further CEQA docume ntation is required. The CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist presents substantial evidence that the analyses conducted, and the conclusions reached in the 2011 General Plan Update EIR (SCH#2010082060) remain valid, and no supplemental environmental re view is required for the proposed project. The proposed project would not cause new significant impacts that were not previously identified in the EIR or result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts. No new mitigation measures would be necessary to reduce significant impacts. No changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances that would cause significant environmental impacts to which the proposed project would contribute considerably, and no new info rmation has been put forward that shows that the proposed project would cause new or substantially worsened significant environmental impacts. Therefore, no supplemental environmental review is required and an addendum to the 2011 General Plan Update EIR c ould be relied upon for CEQA clearance of the proposed project, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.

Following the Appeal filing, staff commissioned CEQA consultant Lamphier -Gregory to prepare a respons e letter (attached as Informational Enclosure 4) that addresses the specific claims made in the Appellant’s CEQA challenge letter. The response letter establishes that project impacts under CEQA were properly disclosed in the CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist, and that the City’s use of CEQA streamlining in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 and no additional CEQA analysis pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 were appropriate for the project Grounds of the Appeal:

The appellant has provided a list for the grounds of their appeal as shown in Informational Item No. 2 – Appeal Application Statement. The grounds of the Appeal and brief responses by the City are as follows. Please see the letter from Lamphier -Gregory Informational Item No. 4 – Consultant Appeal Response Letter, which contains the responses to the assertions raised in the Appeal.

Ground #1: The City Lacks Substantial Evidence to Support Approval of the Project Under a Community Plan Exemption or Addendum and the Pr oject has significant project specific impacts that are peculiar to the Project, were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR, were not know and could not have been known when the 2011 General Plan EIR was certified, and are more severe than previously analyz ed.

As described in the CEQA Consistency Checklist and the staff report, the Project is consistent with the development density and land use characteristics established pursuant to the 2011 Fremont General Plan and as analyzed in the General Plan EIR (“GP EIR”). The Project is consistent with the development densities, bulk and land use standards of the Tech Industrial designation of the General Plan and P -81-15 zoning with respect to site planning, massing, architecture, and other urban design characterist ics. The appeal asserts that specifics of the Project were not contemplated in the General Plan because the Project’s

5.A.g
Packet Pg. 319
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5363) Meeting of February 13, 2025 ARDENWOOD @ PASEO APPEAL PLN2025-00087 Page 14
application was filed after it was adopted, but CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 does not contemplate or require such a scenario. Clearly, th e specifics of the Ardenwood at Paseo Project, or any other currently contemplated individual development project, was not known and could not have been known when the GP EIR was prepared in 2011. Ground #2 :

Significant air quality health risk impacts not disclosed per the appellant’s consultant’s analysis (Informational Item No. 3).

A project-specific Emissions Study was completed and presented in the CEQA Consistency Checklist (Informational Item No. 1). No additional mitigation was deemed necessary because of mandatory project compliance with the City’s standard development requirements. The City of Fremont’s standard development requirements were adopted to be universally applied to all projects. The standard development requirements are applied to all projects and are not considered unique mitigation measures to this project.

Ground #3: SWAPE (appellant consultant) conducted a quantified health risk analysis (“HRA”) of the Project’s toxic air contaminant (“TAC”) emissions, including DPM, and identified he alth risk impacts which are more severe than analyzed in the 2011 General Plan EIR and in the CEQA Checklist.

SWAPE’s documents reference “Screening Level” health risk calculations. As indicated in the emissions study conducted, screening level analysis is more conservative than the more complex and refined detail analysis that was done. Screening level analysis is used to determine whether a more refined analysis should be performed. SWAPE conducted a less detailed screening analysis which would not be app ropriate to be used to refute the results of the more complex and refined detailed analysis that was used in the project’s emission study.

Ground #4: Potential health risk impacts on the nearby day care were not contemplated in the General Plan EIR.

Day c ares are permitted throughout all residential zones in the City of Fremont (FMC

18.90.080) and can be allowed with Zoning Administrator approval in many other zones.

Since the proposed Project use is consistent with the General Plan and zoning, as is the d ay care in the adjacent residential neighborhood, the proximity of these two uses was implicitly contemplated by the General Plan and cannot reasonably be found to be peculiar to this Project or its location. The emissions study assessed sensitive receptors.

Ground #5 The project may result in new and significant construction and operational impacts, including those related to air quality, traffic, noise, and greenhouse gas emissions.

The CEQA Checklist (Informational Item No. 1) details compliance to each of these concerns supported by consultant studies. The project ’s construction is consistent with what the General Plan EIR envisioned for the site and does not constitute an unusual circumstance.

CITY FEES:

The proposed project is subject to development impact fees. Fees would be calculated and due at the time of building permit issuance unless a deferral agreement is approved and executed.

5.A.g
Packet Pg. 320
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5363) Meeting of February 13, 2025 ARDENWOOD @ PASEO APPEAL PLN2025-00087 Page 15
PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT:

Public hearing notification is applicable. Notices were mailed to owners and occupants of property within 300 feet of the site. The notices to owners and occupants were mailed on January 30, 2025 . A Public Hearing Notice was published by The Tri-City Voice on January 28, 2025.

ENCLOSURES:

Exhibit A – Project Plans
Exhibit B – Findings and Conditions of Approval
Informational Item No. 1 – CEQA Determination
Informational Item No. 2 – Appeal Application Statement Informational Item No. 3 – Appeal Study
Informational Item No. 4 – Consultant Appeal Response Letter Informational Item No. 5 – Public Correspondence
Informational Item No. 6 – Zoning Administrator Staff Report 10-15-24 RECOMMENDATION:

1. Hold public hearing;

2. Find that the project as shown in Exhibit “A” is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, as the project is consistent with the General Plan for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH#2010082060) was previously prepared and certified; and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, as none of the circumstances requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR have occurred. Each of the foregoing provides a separate and independent basis for CEQA compliance.

3. Find the requested Discretionary Design Review Permit and floor area ratio increase, as shown on Exhibit “A,” subject to find ings and conditions of approval in Exhibit “B,” is consistent with the City’s General Plan and that the proposed site is physically suitable for the type, density, and intensity of the proposed use, would be compatible with development in the vicinity, and would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of persons or property in the vicinity as enumerated within the staff report; and

4. Deny the third-party appeal (PLN2025-00087) and approve the Discretionary Design Review Permit and Floor A rea Ratio increase (PLN2022 -00466), as shown in Exhibit “A,” subject to findings and conditions contained in Exhibit “B.”

5.A.g
Packet Pg. 321
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5363) Meeting of February 13, 2025 ARDENWOOD @ PASEO APPEAL PLN2025-00087 Page 16

ENCLOSURES
• Exhibit A - Project Plans
• Exhibit B - Findings and Conditions of Approval
• Informational Item No. 1 - CEQA Determination
• Informational Item No. 2 – Appeal Application Statement • Informational Item No. 3 – Appeal Study
• Informational Item No. 4 – Consultant Appeal Response Letter • Informational Item No. 5 – Public Correspondence
• Informational Item No. 6 - Zoning Administrator Staff Report 10-15-24

5.A.g
Packet Pg. 322
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) Lamphier-Gregory  4100 Redwood Road, Suite 20A #601, Oakland, CA 94619  Ph: 510-535-6690

LAMPHIER-GREGORY

Memo
TO: Marc Cleveland, Associate Planner
City of Fremont Community Development
via email at: [email protected]
FROM: Rebecca Auld, Vice President, Lamphier-Gregory
SUBJECT: Response to Appeal of Ardenwood at Paseo Project and its CEQA Document DATE: December 12, 2024
At its public hearing on October 15, 2024, the City of Fremont Zoning Administrator approved a Discretionary Design Review Permit and a floor area ratio increase request in conjunction with a proposed five-building light-industrial/R&D development consisting of 407,250 square feet of new floor area, plus renovation of an existing 43,172-square-foot light-industrial/R&D building, referred to as the Ardenwood at Paseo Project (PLN2022-00466). The zoning Administrator also adopted a finding that no further environmental review is required for the Project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, as the Project is consistent with the density established by the General Plan, for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH#2010082060) was previously prepared and certified.

On October 23, 2024, the law firm of Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo filed an appeal of this decision on behalf of East Bay Residents for Responsible Development (“EBRRD”). The basis for this appeal can be summarized as the assertion that the City's decision to rely on a streamlining provision pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 violated CEQA, and was not supported by substantial evidence.

The three component documents of the appeal are referenced specifically in the discussion below, which include the following:

October 23, 2024 letter from Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo on behalf of EBRRD. (“October 23 EBRRD letter”)
October 15, 2024 letter from Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo on behalf of EBRRD. (“October 15 EBRRD letter”)
October 14, 2024 comments from SWAPE. (“SWAPE Comments”) Lamphier-Gregory has reviewed the basis of the appeal, the CEQA document and supporting technical studies prepared for the Ardenwood at Paseo Project, and we believe that the City’s CEQA document is both valid and supported by substantial evidence. Lamphier-Gregory has prepared the following responses to those CEQA issues raised in the appeal letter, as itemized below.

Summary Basis for Appeal
Basis of the Appeal
The appeal asserts the following related to overall basis for the appeal of the Project:
“The basis for this appeal is set forth in East Bay Residents’ October 15, 2024 comments to the Zoning Administrator [October 15 EBRRD letter], as well as supplemental comments and evidence that will be presented to the Planning Commission on appeal.

5.A.h
Packet Pg. 323
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 6 - Appeal Response Letter (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) Marc Cleveland, City of Fremont December 12, 2024 Page 2 Lamphier-Gregory  4100 Redwood Road, Suite 20A #601, Oakland, CA 94619  Ph: 510-535-6690 “East Bay Residents’ comments explain that the City’s decision to rely on a streamlining exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Community Plan Exemption)[14 CCR § 15183(a)-(c).] and a CEQA addendum pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 violated CEQA and were not supported by substantial evidence because the Project has new or more severe significant impacts than previously analyzed in the 2011 General Plan Update EIR which are peculiar to the Project site and were not known and could not have been known at the time of the EIR’s certification. These impacts are not fully mitigated by the General Plan EIR mitigation measures or the City’s Standard Development Requirements (“SDRs”) and therefore require disclosure and additional mitigation in a project-level EIR. The specific issues presented to the Zoning Administrator are summarized in Exhibit A.” - Page 4 of the October 24 EBRRD letter.

Response to the Appeal
The appeal confuses CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 related to criteria for determining when subsequent CEQA documents should be prepared with CEQA Guidelines Section 15062 related to Addendums. The CEQA Consistency Checklist references CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (Subsequent Document Criteria) and not Section 15062 (Addendums) and Project approvals reflect filing as a project consistent with the General Plan under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 and NOT as an addendum under CEQA Guidelines Section 15062. All references to filing as an addendum or under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are an error of the appeal and are not further responded to when mentioned under individual topics below.

The individual assertions of the appeal are addressed individually, below.

Applicability of CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Projects Consistent with a Community Plan and Zoning)
Basis of the Appeal
The appeal asserts the following related to the applicability of CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 for the Project:
“The City Lacks Substantial Evidence to Support Approval of the Project Under a Community Plan Exemption or Addendum
“CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Community Plan Exemption) may only be relied on if a Project is consistent with a previously approved land use plan for which an EIR was prepared, and where the project does not have any impacts that are peculiar to the proposed project or parcel, are new or more significant than previously analyzed, are potentially significant off-site or cumulative impacts, or cannot be substantially mitigated by uniformly applicable development policies or standards.[14 CCR § 15183(a)-(c).] Similarly, CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (Addendum) prohibits an agency from foregoing preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR if there are substantial changes to a project, changed circumstances, or new information about project impacts that are more severe than previously analyzed. [14 CCR § 15162.]
“The City’s reliance on a CEQA Checklist to exempt the Project from further CEQA review under CEQA Guidelines 15183 and 15162 is improper and not supported by substantial evidence because the Project has significant project specific impacts that are peculiar to the Project, were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR, were not know and could not have been known when the 2011 General Plan EIR was certified, and are more severe than previously analyzed. These impacts are not fully mitigated by the General Plan EIR mitigation measures or the City’s Standard Development Requirements (“SDRs”) and therefore require disclosure and additional mitigation in a project-level EIR.” - Page 7 of the October 15 EBRRD letter.

5.A.h
Packet Pg. 324
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 6 - Appeal Response Letter (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) Marc Cleveland, City of Fremont December 12, 2024 Page 3 Lamphier-Gregory  4100 Redwood Road, Suite 20A #601, Oakland, CA 94619  Ph: 510-535-6690 “Further, the Project is zoned P-81-15 and P-81-15B within the Ardenwood Planned District. But the CEQA Checklist includes no analysis of the Project’s conformity with the Ardenwood Planned District zoning requirements. The CEQA Checklist does not provide clarification whether the Project is required to conform with the Ardenwood Technology Park Planned District Rezoning Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2015052052) nor the Ardenwood Technology Park Planned District Amendment Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2015052052). The Zoning Administrator must determine the Project substantially complies with these zoning requirements and community plans before the Project can lawfully be approved.” - Page 7 of the October 15 EBRRD letter.

Response to the Appeal
These assertions of the appeal are fundamentally incorrect and misconstrue the CEQA requirements for consistency with the General Plan and zoning. Moreover, these assertions are directly contradicted by facts contained in the CEQA document and its environmental record.

The CEQA Consistency Checklist prepared for the Project does rely on a Community Plan Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, which contemplates that a specific development project occurring later in time will be evaluated based on its consistency with a prior CEQA document. A fundamental requirement for the Community Plan Exemption is that the Project must be consistent with the development density as established by existing zoning, community plan or General Plan for which a previously prepared EIR has been certified. As fully described in the CEQA Consistency Checklist and the October 15, 2024 Staff Report to the Zoning Administrator, the Project is fully consistent with the development density and land use characteristics established pursuant to the 2011 Fremont General Plan and as analyzed in the General Plan EIR (“GP EIR”). The Project is consistent with the development densities, bulk and land use standards of the Tech Industrial designation of the General Plan and P-81-15 zoning with respect to site planning, massing, architecture, and other urban design characteristics (see pages 4 through 7 of the October 15, 2024 Staff Report to the Zoning Administrator for a detailed assessment). The P-81-15 zoning dates back to the 1981 Ardenwood Forest – New Town project and the most recent amendment to that zoning in 2016, associated with the Ardenwood Technology Park Planned District Rezoning Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2015052052), tied those land use allowances to the I-T (Tech Industrial) zoning district, as set forth in Fremont Municipal Code Table

18.50.090, also consistent with the General Plan designation of the site (see pages 2 and 3 of the October 15, 2024 Staff Report to the Zoning Administrator for a detailed discussion).

The appeal misstates the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 when it indicates use of this section is inappropriate because the Project had not yet been proposed when the 2011 GP EIR was certified. The appeal asserts that specifics of the Project were not contemplated in the General Plan because the Project’s application was filed after it was adopted, but CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 does not contemplate or require such a scenario. Clearly, the specifics of the Ardenwood at Paseo Project, or any other currently contemplated individual development project, was not known and could not have been known when the GP EIR was prepared in 2011. However, contemplation of the details of specific development projects is not the CEQA standard of consistency for this CEQA exemption. The standard for consistency as established in CEQA Guidelines section 15183 is consistency with the development densities and land use standards of the General Plan, community plan and zoning as analyzed in a previously prepared EIR. Findings of the Project’s consistency with density and land use standards have been made and supported by substantial evidence, and they are not challenged here.

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

5.A.h
Packet Pg. 325
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 6 - Appeal Response Letter (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) Marc Cleveland, City of Fremont December 12, 2024 Page 4 Lamphier-Gregory  4100 Redwood Road, Suite 20A #601, Oakland, CA 94619  Ph: 510-535-6690 See also response to Summary Basis for Appeal above regarding Addendum section 15062 not being applicable to this Project and all other responses below, which address specific individual points related to the basis above.

Programmatic vs. Project-Specific Effects
Basis of the Appeal
The appeal mentions “project-level” analysis in multiple places and specifically asserts the following related to the lack of analysis of this Project at a project-level in the GP EIR:
“As detailed herein … the Project was not contemplated in the 2011 General Plan EIR, and has new or more severe significant impacts than previously analyzed in the 2011 General Plan EIR which are peculiar to the Project site, were not analyzed at a project-level, and were not known and could not have been known at the time of the EIR’s certification because the Project had not yet been proposed when the 2011 General Plan EIR was certified.” - Page 2 of the October 15 EBRRD letter.

Response to the Appeal
These assertions of the appeal inappropriately combine the purpose of a program EIR, such as the City’s 2011 GP EIR, and the purpose of streamlined environmental review, such as the CEQA Consistency Checklist prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 for the Ardenwood at Paseo Project.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15186, the Fremont GP EIR is a “program” EIR. Among its other purposes and advantages, this program GP EIR allowed the City of Fremont to consider broad policy alternatives and program-wide mitigation measures at an early time when the City had greater flexibility to deal with basic issues or cumulative impacts. Later activities pursuant to the GP Program EIR must be examined in the light of the GP Program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. Where later activities involve site-specific activities, the City relies on a written checklist to document the evaluation of the Project and its site, and to determine whether the environmental effects of the Project were within the scope of the program GP EIR.

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

See also all other responses below, which address specific individual points related to the basis above.

Significant AQ Health Risk Impacts Not Disclosed and Standard Development Requirements (SDRs) Basis of the Appeal
The appeal asserts the following related to significant health risk impacts not disclosed for the Project:
“The City Cannot Rely on a Community Plan Exemption or Addendum to Approve the Project Because the Project May Result in Significant Health Risk Impacts that are Peculiar to the Project and More Severe than Previously Analyzed
“The CEQA Checklist states that the risk associated with project construction at the maximally exposed individual (MEI) would be 12.44 in one million, which would exceed the BAAQMD cancer risk of 10 in one million resulting in an admittedly significant impact which was not disclosed in the General Plan EIR.[CEQA Checklist, p. 24.] The CEQA Checklist attempts to dismiss the impact by

5.A.h
Packet Pg. 326
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 6 - Appeal Response Letter (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) Marc Cleveland, City of Fremont December 12, 2024 Page 5 Lamphier-Gregory  4100 Redwood Road, Suite 20A #601, Oakland, CA 94619  Ph: 510-535-6690 stating that “all health risks would be reduced with implementation of FCM Section 18.218.050(a)(2), and the reduced cancer risk at the MEI would be 2.17 in one million, which would not exceed the BAAQMD cancer risk of 10 in one million. Therefore, with implementation of the supplemental construction measures identified in FMC Section 18.218.050(a), construction of the proposed project would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds and would not expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.”[Id.] However, this statement is not supported by substantial evidence because the City did not quantify the health risk from all Project emissions, including DPM exposure during Project operation, and SWAPE determined that reliance on FMC mitigation does not support the conclusion that the health risk impacts would be reduced below the level of significance. [SWAPE Comments p. 2.] In particular, SWAPE found that construction emissions may be more severe than analyzed in the 2011 General Plan EIR because the 2011 General Plan EIR did not contemplate the Project within 1000 feet of a daycare facility. “SWAPE conducted a quantified health risk analysis (“HRA”) of the Project’s toxic air contaminant (“TAC”) emissions, including DPM, and identified health risk impacts which are more severe than analyzed in the 2011 General Plan EIR and in the CEQA Checklist. SWAPE identified the Child (2-6 years) excess cancer risk factor, over the course of the Project’s operation as 14.5 in one million. [SWAPE Comments p. 7.] The total excess cancer risk for all populations, including 3rd Trimester pregnant individuals, Infants (0-2), Child (2-16), Adults (16-30) over the lifetime of the Project is 54.3 in one million excess cancer risk.[Id.] The cancer risk associated with development of the Project so close to nearby sensitive receptors results in a significant cancer risk exceeding BAAQMD thresholds of 10 in one million. [Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2022 CEQA Guidelines, Thresholds of Significance, p. 3-4.]
“The impact of Project operation on sensitive receptors, including those at the daycare were not known at the time the 2011 General Plan EIR was certified and are determined to have more severe adverse impacts than discussed in the prior EIR. The 2011 General Plan EIR makes no mention of analysis of impacts of development under the General Plan on daycares within the Project vicinity.

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

In response to the appeal’s assertion that project level air quality health risk impacts need to be studied for the project, it is noted that a project-specific Emissions Study was indeed already completed and presented in the CEQA Consistency Checklist.
1 The GP EIR discussed diesel exhaust with respect to health effects on page 4-141, concluding that emissions from construction activities could result in significant impacts on sensitive receptors if measures to reduce emissions were not implemented for larger construction projects. Related mitigation measures from the GP EIR were MM AIR-2 and AIR-3, which as shown in the CEQA Consistency Checklist (page 16) have been superseded by Fremont Standard Development

1 LSA, Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis for the Fremont Ardenwood at Paseo Padre Project, Fremont, California, February 7, 2024 (“Emissions Study”)

5.A.h
Packet Pg. 327
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 6 - Appeal Response Letter (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) Marc Cleveland, City of Fremont December 12, 2024 Page 6 Lamphier-Gregory  4100 Redwood Road, Suite 20A #601, Oakland, CA 94619  Ph: 510-535-6690 Requirements, required basic and supplemental measures to reduce construction related emissions below significance levels, SDR FMC 18.218.050(a)(1) and SDR FMC 18.218.050(a)(2).

The 2011 General Plan and associated GP EIR make no assertions that construction activities would be disallowed in proximity to residential areas. In fact, applying such constrictions would invalidate much of the potential growth assumed in these documents. Similarly, since the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and zoning, as is the proximate residential neighborhood, it does not stand to reason that this proximity of construction to existing residential areas was somehow not anticipated in the General Plan. The Project proposes standard construction activities that are not outside the norm for this type of development under General Plan designations. Given the extremely common situation that construction activities could occur in proximity to a residential area as well as the clear indication of allowed proximity by the General Plan designations and zoning of these areas, the proximity of the proposed use or its construction activities to a residential area cannot reasonably be found to be peculiar to this Project or its location. See the discussion under the header, “Applicability of CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Projects Consistent with a Community Plan and Zoning)” earlier in this memo related to appropriate CEQA criteria under Section 15183.

The appeal presents the modeled risk levels prior to application of Standard Development Requirements (the 12.44 in one million referenced above) as if those are the basis for impact conclusions.

Consideration of a project’s impacts factor in compliance with regulations and requirements prior to making an impact determination. As indicated on pages 24 and 25 of the CEQA Consistency Checklist, this preliminary modeling step was used to determine applicability of Fremont’s Standard Development Requirement FMC 18.218.050(a)(2) Construction-Related Emissions – Supplemental Measures, and that it is the further modeling with application of the Standard Development Requirements that is used in determination of impact significance, which was found to be below threshold levels and therefore a less-than-significant impact.

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

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

The City of Fremont’s Standard Development Requirements were adopted by Ordinance, finding that the development policies or standards will substantially mitigate environmental effects when applied to future projects. Accordingly, the Standard Development Requirements cited in the Project’s CEQA

5.A.h
Packet Pg. 328
Attachment: PLN2025-00163 Informational Item No. 6 - Appeal Response Letter (5398 : Ardenwood at Paseo Appeal) Marc Cleveland, City of Fremont December 12, 2024 Page 7 Lamphier-Gregory  4100 Redwood Road, Suite 20A #601, Oakland, CA 94619  Ph: 510-535-6690 Environmental Compliance Checklist do apply to the Project, are not unique mitigation measures specific to the Project, but will serve to mitigate the Project’s potential impacts.

This response is focused to impact disclosure in the General Plan and CEQA Consistency Checklist. See also discussions below related to Alternate Emissions Results - SWAPE Comments, Operational Health Risk and Warehouse Use, Assessment of the Nearby Day Care, and Requiring Additional Air Quality Mitigation, which address the other considerations of the basis above.

Alternate Emissions Results - SWAPE Comments
Basis of the Appeal
The appeal incorporates a document referred to as SWAPE comments, which is referenced numerous locations in the appeal as evidence of greater health risk and air quality impacts than disclosed, including the following:
“SWAPE conducted a quantified health risk analysis (“HRA”) of the Project’s toxic air contaminant (“TAC”) emissions, including DPM, and identified health risk impacts which are more severe than analyzed in the 2011 General Plan EIR and in the CEQA Checklist. SWAPE identified the Child (2-6 years) excess cancer risk factor, over the course of the Project’s operation as 14.5 in one million.31 The total excess cancer risk for all populations, including 3rd Trimester pregnant individuals, Infants (0-2), Child (2-16), Adults (16-30) over the lifetime of the Project is 54.3 in one million excess cancer risk.[Id.] The cancer risk associated with development of the Project so close to nearby sensitive receptors results in a significant cancer risk exceeding BAAQMD thresholds of 10 in one million. [Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2022 CEQA Guidelines, Thresholds of Significance, p. 3-4.]” -

Page 8 ends

Fremont City CouncilMay 6, 2025

Fremont City Council
May 6, 2025