Fremont City Council
May 6, 2025

CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST
Introduction
City General Plan Tech Industrial
The City of Fremont’s General Plan for Tech Industrial primarily applies to areas used for research and 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. Manufacturing is permitted, provided that characteristics such as noise, vibration, and odor do not generate significant impacts.

Warehousing, wholesaling, and distribution facilities also may locate within these areas. A moderate level of hazardous materials handling and storage may occur. Some of the Tech Industrial areas, such as Bayside and Ardenwood technology Parks, are characterized by a campus-like environment of one and two story buildings on large parcels. Architectural and landscape standards have been applied in these areas to maintain high standards of visual quality. Other areas with this designation have a more varied mix of parcels and uses. A permitted FAR of 0.35 applies, although FARs up to 0.45 are permitted for manufacturing and warehouse uses.

The proposed
Project is located within the Ardenwood Forest – New Town Planned District In the Tech – Industrial General Plan area.

Key policy guidance from the Tech Industrial General Plan section pertaining to desired land use and design for future development, including new development, include the following:
 Policy 2-5.2A, Tech Industrial Areas: Accommodate a range of development settings in the “Tech Industrial” designation, including planned industrial parks with abundant landscaping and high design and aesthetic standards similar to Ardenwood and Bayside Technology Parks, and more conventional industrial businesses with outdoor storage and use of hazardous materials.

Consistent with
the General Plan’s vision, the proposed development would develop five new light industrial buildings totaling 407,250 square feet and renovation of an existing 43,172-square-foot light industrial building on the 24.2-acre site This is consistent with the creation of more large campus style developments desired by the Ardenwood area Tech Industrial General Plan Area.

Prior Environmental
Review / 2011 General Plan Update EIR
In 2011, the City of Fremont adopted a comprehensive update of the City of Fremont General Plan General Plan Update). The 2011 General Plan Update lays out a broad vision for the City, with goals, policies and implementation measures to achieve that vision. The 2011 General Plan Update established year 2035 as the horizon year, or the year by which the City projects is the earliest time period that the growth anticipated in the Plan will be achieved. The General Plan update was found consistent with state and regional planning efforts to focus growth near existing transit stations and corridors.

Concurrent with
adoption of the 2011 General Plan Update, the City also prepared and certified a General Plan Update EIR (SCH#2010082060). The 2011 General Plan EIR identifies potentially significant environmental impacts in the topics of Transportation and Circulation, Cultural and Archaeological Resources, Air Quality, Agricultural Resources, Noise, Utilities and Service Systems, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Global Climate Change. Mitigation were identified to reduce all potentially significant effects to a less-than-significant level, except for the following;
 Unacceptable levels of service at specified intersections and on specified roadway segments  Air quality emissions and Clean Air Plan consistency  Noise increases related to traffic, and noise conflicts of incompatible uses and construction noise  Potential demolition of cultural and historic resources  Loss or conversion of prime or unique farmland to urban uses, and  Cumulative greenhouse gas emissions
No feasible mitigation was found capable of fully reducing these impacts.

Fremont Standard Development Requirements
City of Fremont 2
Subsequent to adoption of the City General Plan, Fremont has adopted Standard Development Requirements (SDRs) as part of the Fremont Municipal Code. Where SDRs supersede mitigation identified in the General Plan Update EIR or are otherwise applicable, they are included in this analysis.

The Purpose of this CEQA Document
The environmental analysis in this CEQA Consistency Checklist has been prepared for the proposed Project pursuant to the requirements of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines.

Specifically, the following CEQA Consistency Checklist has been prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Projects Consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning), to determine if the Project requires additional environmental review. Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that projects that are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified (e.g., the General Plan Update EIR) shall not require additional environmental review, except as necessary to examine whether there are project‐ specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or project site.

In accordance
with the conclusion of the following CEQA Consistency Checklist, there are no new significant effects peculiar to this Project or this Project’s site other than those previously identified in the General Plan Update EIR. The programmatic mitigation measures from the General Plan Update EIR and/or SDRs are applied to the Project, and these measures and/or SDRs adequately address the potential environmental effects of the Project, as described in the environmental analyses below.

This analysis
concludes that the Ardenwood and Paseo Project at 39150 is within the scope of the Fremont General Plan Update EIR and that no further CEQA documentation is required.

The Fremont General Plan Update EIR is hereby incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 and is available at:

City of Fremont Community Development Department, Planning Division 39550
Liberty Street
Fremont, CA 94538
Or online at:
https://www.fremont.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning-building-permit- services/plans-maps-guidelines/general-plan

City of Fremont 3

PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Title: Ardenwood at Paseo
Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Fremont, Planning Division 39550 Liberty Street, PO Box 5006
Fremont, CA 94537-5006
Contact Person and Phone Number: Mark Hungerford, Senior Planner – (510) 494-4541 Project Location: 6200 Paseo Padre Parkway
Fremont, CA 9455
(APN 543 043914800)
Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Evan Sockalosky, Arc Tec Inc. 17312 Technology Dr, Ste. 750
San Jose, CA 95110
General Plan Designation: Industrial - Tech
Zoning: P-81-15
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
The 24.2-acre project site is bounded by Paseo Padre Parkway, Ardenwood Boulevard, and Commerce Drive (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APNs] 543-439-125, 543-439-148, 543-439-35, and 543-439-127) in the City of Fremont. The project site is mostly vacant undeveloped land, with the Northernmost and southernmost parcel developed with a solar farm and the middle parcel developed with an existing single-story industrial building.

Description of Project
The proposed project would modify the Zoning Standards with a request for increased floor area ratio in conjunction with development of five new light industrial buildings totaling 407,250 square feet and renovation of an existing 43,172-square-foot light industrial building on the 24.2-acre site bounded by Paseo Padre Parkway, Ardenwood Boulevard, and Commerce Drive in the Ardenwood Forest—New Town Planned District (P-81-15) and North Fremont Community Plan Area.

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.

City of Fremont 4
Two existing light industrial buildings along the Ardenwood Boulevard frontage (34175 and 34325 Ardenwood Boulevard) would remain unmodified by the project.

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 bicycle 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 curb-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 the site’s perimeter landscape easement, within the project’s 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 floor area ratio for the lot would be 0.51, which exceeds the adopted floor area ratio maximum (0.35) for non-manufacturing or warehouse uses on Tech Industrial-designated sites. The project’s Design Review Permit would be subject to Community Development Director approval in accordance with P-81-15 policy.

Construction Activities and Schedule
While the timeline for construction is variable and subject to change, construction is anticipated to begin immediately after building permit issuance. Construction activities for the project would occur over a span of approximately 24 to 28 months. The proposed project would include the demolition of 77,363 square feet of asphalt and the export of 2,472 cubic yards of soil and the import of 16,000 cubic yards of soil.

Construction activities
would comply with Fremont Municipal Code requirements, which limit construction hours to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays (FMC, Section 18.160.010). Typical construction equipment such as dump trucks, backhoes, and bulldozers would be used in construction.

Standard Development Requirements
The City of Fremont has established standard development requirements to address resource protection (Fremont Municipal Code Chapter 18.218). These requirements apply to air quality (construction-related emissions), biological resources (special-status species), and cultural resources (notification of affiliated California Native American Tribes and accidental discovery of cultural resources). The proposed project would comply with these standard development requirements, which are described in subsequent Sections of this Initial Study.

AB52 Notification
The project was not required to send notices to Native American Tribes per Assembly Bill 52. Therefore, no notices were sent.

Project Approvals
The project is a private development proposal that involves private funds (no City, State, or federal funds). To allow the proposed project, the following approvals by the City would be necessary:
 Discretionary Design Review
 Tree Removal Permit
 Grading Permit
 Modification of Zoning Standards
 Tentative Parcel Map
The project would be reviewed and discussed at public hearings before the Zoning Administrator.

City of Fremont 5
Other Public Agencies Requiring Approval
The project may also require permits and/or approvals from:
• Alameda County Flood Control District (ACFCD),
• Alameda County Water District (ACWD), and
• Union Sanitary District (USD)
General Plan Conformance
As previously noted, the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan for which a program-level Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and certified by the Fremont City Council in December 2011, in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, projects that are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified (e.g., the General Plan Update EIR) shall not require additional environmental review, except as necessary to examine whether there are project‐specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or project site. This CEQA Consistency Checklist has been prepared for that purpose and has determined that the Project is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan or Zoning. The Project is consistent with the development densities established in the existing zoning and General Plan for which an EIR was certified.

As established
in the substantial evidence presented in thus document, there are no project-specific significant effects that are peculiar to the Project or its site that were not analyzed a significant effects in the prior EIR, no potentially significant off-site impacts or cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR, nor previously identified significant effect which, as a result of substantial new information that was not known at the time the prior EIR was certified and that would have a more severe adverse effect than discussed in the prior EIR.

City of Fremont 6
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
Project Site
City of Fremont 7
Figure 2: Site Aerial

City of Fremont 8
Figure 3: Proposed Site Plan

City of Fremont 9

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 mandates that no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for a project for which an EIR has been certified unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
1) Substantial
changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2) Substantial
changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 3) New information
of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
a) The project
will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or d) Mitigation
measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

Furthermore, CEQA
Guidelines Section 15183(b) states that, in approving a project meeting the requirements of this section, a public agency shall limit its examination of environmental effects to those which the agency determines, in an initial study or other analysis:
1) Are
peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located; 2) Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior General Plan Update EIR on the zoning action, general plan, or community plan, with which the project is consistent; 3) Are potentially significant off‐ site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior General Plan Update EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action; or 4) Are previously identified significant effects which, due to substantial new information which was not known at the time the General Plan Update EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior General Plan Update EIR.

The following pages of this document contain a CEQA Comparative Checklist that examines the Project’s potential environmental effects are within the parameters outlined by CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15183(b). The “Prior EIR” used for comparison is the Fremont General Plan Update certified by the City Council on December 13, 2011 (SCH#2010082060), including all impact determinations and significant thresholds utilized therein.

The General
Plan Update EIR is hereby incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 and can be obtained from the City of Fremont Community Development Services Center at 39550 Liberty St., Fremont, CA 94538 Or online at https://www.fremont.gov/government/departments/community- development/planning-building-permit-services/plans-maps-guidelines/general-plan. The following CEQA checklist examines how the potential effects relate to the conclusions of the prior General Plan Update EIR, and whether any new or more significant impacts than those identified in that prior EIR would result from the Project.

This CEQA Checklist identifies potential environmental effects of the Project using a checklist method, with adequate explanation and evidence to support the Checklist entries and conclusions. The CEQA Checklist uses the following acronyms for CEQA conclusions:
 No Impact - for environmental factors that would not be affected in any manner  LTS - for less than significant impacts
 LTS w/SDRs or LTS w/MM - for impacts that would be reduced to LTS with implementation of identified City of Fremont Standard Development Requirements (or SDRs) and/or mitigation measures (MMs) as identified in an applicable prior program EIR (i.e., the General Plan Update EIR), and  SU - for significant and unavoidable impacts
City of Fremont 10

1.1 AESTHETICS
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) Have a substantial adverse effect on
a public scenic vista? LTS  ☐ - LTS
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including but not limited to
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
LTS  ☐ - LTS
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those
that are experienced from publicly
accessible vantage points.) If the project
is in an urbanized area, would the
project conflict with applicable zoning
and other regulations governing scenic
quality?
LTS  ☐ - LTS
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
LTS  ☐ - LTS

1.1.1 Environmental Setting
The 24.2-acre project site is bounded by Paseo Padre Parkway, Ardenwood Boulevard, and Commerce Drive (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APNs] 543-439-125, 543-439-148, 543-439-35, and 543-439-127) in the City of Fremont. The project site is mostly vacant undeveloped land with the northernmost and southernmost parcel developed with a solar farm and the middle parcel is developed with an
existing single-story industrial
building. The project site contains 372 trees in varying species, size, and condition.

The proposed project would develop a six-building research and development manufacturing/office campus totaling approximately 450,420 square feet of building area, including five new multi-story buildings and the renovation of the existing one-story-high bay building. The proposed project would include four new two-story buildings and one new three-story building. The goal of the proposed project is to maximize the development opportunity for the parcels and create a campus to attract new and growing companies to Fremont. The campus would be designed to support a single user for the entire campus, multiple users in groups of two buildings, or single/multiple tenants per buildings.

The General Plan considers the East Bay hills north and east of the site as scenic views for neighborhoods and commercial centers, and Fremont residents have voted to protect these hills as open space on several occasions, confirming their value as a scenic resource. The East Bay hills, including Mission Peak, can currently be seen from the project site. The surrounding neighborhood consists of a City of Fremont 11
mix of low-rise commercial buildings and multi-story office and residential buildings. Views of the East Bay hills from and across the project site are partially obstructed by trees and the surrounding urban development.

The General
Plan also identified scenic routes for the purpose of prioritizing roadway and landscape treatments and consideration of broad views of resources, including Paseo Padre Parkway, which is adjacent to the project site.

Existing lighting
in the area consists primarily of streetlights in the public right of way and parking lot lighting for the surrounding development. The proposed development would add additional lighting and parking. As discussed in more detail under Section 1.5 Cultural Resources, the existing building at the site is not a significant historic resource.

1.1.2 Discussion
a) Have
a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
While Paseo Padre Parkway is considered a scenic route, views from this roadway toward the East Bay hills scenic resource are already intermittently obstructed by landscaping, topography, and development.

While the proposed development at the site could contribute to this intermittent obstruction, it is consistent with the expected size and type of development for this property, including the incorporation of campus like landscape treatments along this scenic route consistent with expectations under the General Plan.

The proposed project would not have a significant impact on scenic vistas of the East Bay hills or any other scenic vistas.

There is nothing
peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding scenic vistas. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic and there is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, impacts from the construction and operation of the project on a scenic vista would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
b) Substantially
damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? There are no designated or eligible State Scenic Highways in the vicinity of the project. 1 The project would not be prominent in views from distant State Scenic Highways.

There are no rock outcroppings or historic buildings located on the project site. The site currently contains 372 trees of various species and size. 353 of these trees would be removed. Removal of these trees would be done in accordance with the City of Fremont Tree Preservation Ordinance (FMC 18.215).

Removed trees would be replaced on site with new trees. Any trees removed and not replaced would be subject to tree mitigation fees to add to the urban canopy elsewhere in the City.

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

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
1 California Department of Transportation, State Scenic Highway Mapping System, accesses 9/30/24, available at:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways.

City of Fremont 12
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
The proposed
project is located in an urbanized area, developed by a mix of commercial, and residential uses. Across the way from the site is the Coyote Hills East Bay Regional Park. The site currently contains one office building, a solar farm, and parking lot. The proposed project would conform to the applicable City zoning rules and development policies, which ensure that the project would be consistent with the General Plan goals and policies related to Aesthetics as evaluated in the General Plan EIR.

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

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
d) Create a
new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
The proposed project would be located in an urban area along parkway and arterial streets. The site would be illuminated by both building mounted and pole mounted lights. In accordance with Fremont development policies and the Fremont General Plan, the lighting would be configured in such a way as to prevent light spill onto neighboring properties and to avoid objectionable glare. Compliance with the exterior lighting requirements of the Zoning Ordinance (FMC 18.50.050(d)) and Citywide Design Guidelines would ensure that the project would not create new source of substantial light and glare and impacts would be less than significant. As such, no mitigation is required.

Construction activities
for the site would be required to be within the City’s construction hours, which are limited to the daytime hours (7am to 7pm on weekdays; 9am to 6pm on Saturdays and holidays, no construction allowed on Sunday). Compliance with these hours would ensure construction-related impacts from light and glare would be less than significant.

For these
reasons, the project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area and the impact would be less than significant with no mitigation required. There is nothing peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding light or glare adversely affecting day or nighttime views in the area. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic and there is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR.

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
References

1. City of Fremont, 2023. City of Fremont Municipal Code, Chapter 18, Planning and Zoning.

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

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

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

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

City of Fremont 13

5. California Department of Transportation, State Scenic Highway Mapping System, available at:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic- highways.

City of Fremont 14

1.2 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST 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) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
SU  ☐ - No Impact
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract
No Impact  ☐ - No Impact
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land,
timberland, or timberland zoned
Timberland Production, or result in the
loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use
No Impact  ☐ - No Impact

1.2.1 Environmental Setting
The project site is located within the boundaries of the City of Fremont, on a site that is currently partially developed and partially undeveloped, but entirely within an area planned for development. No portion of the site is zoned for or being used for agricultural or forestry purposes.

The project would infill a significant portion of the planned yet unbuilt industrial area of the greater Ardenwood Corporate Commons Business Park, consistent with the Ardenwood Forest—New Town Planned District.

1.2.2 Discussion
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? The proposed project site is mapped as “Urban and Built-Up Land” by the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. 2 No agricultural land use exists within the proposed project site or the Downtown District. This condition precludes the possibility of the conversion of Important Farmland to non-agricultural use. Therefore, no impact to prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance would result from the project and no mitigation is required.

There is
nothing peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in conversion of farmland.

The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this 2 California Department of Conservation, Important Farmland Finder. Accessed on November 3, 2023. Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/
City of Fremont 15
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) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? The project site is not under William Act contract and has a P-81-15 zoning, which is not reserved for agricultural use. Furthermore, there are no agriculturally zoned lands or existing Williamson Act contracts in the project area. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract so no impact to such lands would result from the project.

There is nothing
peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding zoning for agricultural uses or a Williamson Act contract. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic 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
c) Conflict
with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
The site
is zoned P-81-15, which is not for forest or timberland use, and the site does not contain any forest or timberlands. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of forest or timberland or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use, no forest resource impacts would result from the development of the project, and no mitigation is required.

There is nothing
peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding forest or timberland. 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
d) Result
in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? The proposed project is located in a built-up, urban area and does not contain any forest or timberlands.

Therefore, no forest resource impacts would result from the development of the project, and no mitigation is required. There is nothing peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding a loss of forest land or conversion of forest land.

The proposed
project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic 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
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
The proposed project is located in a built-up, urban area that does not contain any farmland, forest or timberlands. Therefore, development of the project would not result in conversion of Farmland to non- City of Fremont 16
agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use, and no mitigation is required. There is nothing peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

The proposed
project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic 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
References

1. California Department of Conservation Important Farmland Finder.

Available at https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/.

2. California Department of Conservation, 2022. Williamson Act Status Report. Available at https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/wa/Pages/stats_reports.aspx.

3. City of Fremont, 2023. City of Fremont Municipal Code, Chapter 18, Planning and Zoning.

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

4. City of Fremont, 2011. City of Fremont General Plan. Community Character Element. Adopted December 2011. Available: https://www.fremont.gov/government/departments/community- development/planning-building-permit-services/plans-maps-guidelines/general-plan City of Fremont 17

1.3 AIR QUALITY
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 or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan or violate any air quality
standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation
SU  ☐ - LTS
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal
or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)
Construction:

SU
with MM
Air-3
 ☐ SDR FMC

18.218.050(a)(1):

Construction Related
Emissions
LTS with
SDR
c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations
LTS with MM
Air-2
 SDR FMC

18.218.050(a)(2):

Construction Related
Emissions -
Supplemental
Measures
LTS with
SDR
d) Create objectionable odors affecting
a substantial number of people
LTS  - LTS

1.3.1 Environmental Setting
The proposed manufacturing/office campus development would provide landscaping throughout the project site with amenity areas located between the buildings. The buildings would be designed for flexibility to include manufacturing and loading needs, including loading and service areas located at the rear of the buildings towards the interior of the site, screened for the public. Typical hours would be 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The project also includes parking fields containing a total of 1,379 parking spaces, plus hardscape and hardscape improvements.

The proposed project
would comply with the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code) building measures and Title 24 standards. In addition, the proposed project would be all-electric and would include 139 electric vehicle (EV) standard parking spaces, 1 EV standard accessible parking space, 2 EV van accessible parking spaces, 2 EV ambulatory accessible parking spaces, 12 car share spaces, and 110 clean air/carpool/vanpool/EV parking provided spaces. Once operational, the proposed project would generate approximately 4,512 average daily trips. The proposed project would not include any diesel emergency generators or diesel fire pumps.

Construction activities
for the project would occur over 24 to 28 months. The proposed project would include the demolition of 77,363 square feet of asphalt and the export of 2,472 cubic yards of soil and the import of 16,000 cubic yards of soil.

City of Fremont 18
The City has adopted “Standard Development Requirements” under the Fremont Municipal Code Section

18.218.050, which include the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines best management practices to control dust during construction projects.

Air quality
is primarily a function of both local climate, local sources of air pollution and regional pollution transport. The amount of a given pollutant in the atmosphere is determined by the amount of the pollutant released and the atmosphere’s ability to transport and dilute the pollutant. The major determinants of transport and dilution are wind, atmospheric stability, terrain, and for photochemical pollutants, sunshine.

A region’s
topographic features have a direct correlation with air pollution flow and, therefore, are used to determine the boundary of air basins. Fremont is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (Air Basin), a large shallow air basin ringed by hills that taper into a number of sheltered valleys around the perimeter. Two primary atmospheric outlets exist. One is through the strait known as the Golden Gate, a direct outlet to the Pacific Ocean. The second extends to the northeast, along the west delta region of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers.

Fremont is
within the jurisdiction of the BAAQMD, which regulates air quality in the Bay Area. Air quality conditions in the Bay Area have improved significantly since the BAAQMD was created in 1955. Ambient concentrations of air pollutants and the number of days during which the region exceeds air quality standards have fallen dramatically. Neither State nor national ambient air quality standards of the following chemicals have been violated in recent decades: nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, sulfates, lead, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride. Those exceedances of air quality standards that do occur primarily happen during meteorological conditions conducive to high pollution levels, such as cold, windless nights or hot, sunny summer afternoons.

Both State
and federal governments have established health-based Ambient Air Quality Standards for six criteria air pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead (Pb), and suspended particulate matter. In addition, the State has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride and visibility-reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety. Two criteria pollutants, O3 and NO2, are considered regional pollutants because they (or their precursors) affect air quality on a regional scale. Pollutants such as CO, SO2, and Pb are considered local pollutants that tend to accumulate in the air locally. The BAAQMD is under State non-attainment status for ozone and particulate matter standards.

The BAAQMD is classified as non-attainment for the federal ozone 8-hour standard and non-attainment for the federal PM2.5 24-hour standard. As such, the primary pollutants of concern in the project area are O3, CO, and PM2.5.

Because of
the conservative nature of the significance thresholds, and the basin-wide context of individual development project emissions, there is no direct correlation between a single project and localized air quality-related health effects. One individual project that generates emissions exceeding a threshold does not necessarily result in adverse health effects for residents in the project vicinity. This condition is especially true when the criteria pollutants exceeding thresholds are those with regional effects, such as ozone precursors like nitrogen oxides (NOx) and reactive organic gases (ROG).

Further, by
its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to by itself result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant. In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, the air districts have considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions.

Occupants of
facilities such as schools, daycare centers, parks and playgrounds, hospitals, and nursing and convalescent homes are considered to be more sensitive than the general public to air pollutants because these population groups have increased susceptibility to respiratory disease. Persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise also have increased sensitivity to poor air quality. Residential areas are considered more sensitive to air quality conditions, compared to commercial and industrial areas, because people generally spend longer periods of time at their residences, with greater associated City of Fremont 19
exposure to ambient air quality conditions. Recreational uses are also considered sensitive compared to commercial and industrial uses due to greater exposure to ambient air quality conditions associated with exercise. These populations are referred to as sensitive receptors.

Regulatory Framework:

Federal Regulations
The 1970
Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) authorized the establishment of national health-based air quality standards and set deadlines for their attainment. The CAA Amendments of 1990 changed deadlines for attaining national standards as well as the remedial actions required for areas of the nation that exceed the standards. Under the CAA, State and local agencies in areas that exceed the national standards are required to develop State Implementation Plans to demonstrate how they will achieve the national standards by specified dates.

State Regulations
In 1988,
the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) required that all air districts in the State endeavor to achieve and maintain California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for CO, O3, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) by the earliest practical date. The CCAA provides districts with authority to regulate indirect sources and mandates that air quality districts focus particular attention on reducing emissions from transportation and area-wide emission sources. Each nonattainment district is required to adopt a plan to achieve a 5 percent annual reduction, averaged over consecutive 3-year periods, in district-wide emissions of each nonattainment pollutant or its precursors. A Clean Air Plan shows how a district would reduce emissions to achieve air quality standards. Generally, the State standards for these pollutants are more stringent than the national standards.

The CARB is
the State’s “clean air agency.” The CARB’s goals are to attain and maintain healthy air quality, protect the public from exposure to toxic air contaminants, and oversee compliance with air pollution rules and regulations.

Regional Regulations
The BAAQMD seeks to attain and maintain air quality conditions in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin through a comprehensive program of planning, regulation, enforcement, technical innovation, and education. The clean air strategy includes the preparation of plans for the attainment of ambient air quality standards, adoption and enforcement of rules and regulations, and issuance of permits for stationary sources. The BAAQMD also inspects stationary sources and responds to citizen complaints, monitors ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, and implements programs and regulations required by law.

Clean Air Plan.

The Clean Air Plan guides the region’s air quality planning efforts to attain the CAAQS.8 The BAAQMD 2017 Clean Air Plan, developed in association with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments, is the current Clean Air Plan which contains district-wide control measures to reduce ozone precursor emissions (e.g., ROG and NOx), particulate matter and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

The Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan:
• Describes
the BAAQMD plan towards attaining all State and federal air quality standards and eliminating health risk disparities from exposure to air pollution among Bay Area communities; • Defines a vision for transitioning the region to a post-carbon economy needed to achieve ambitious GHG reduction targets for 2030 and 2050;
• Provides a regional climate protection strategy that will put the Bay Area on a pathway to achieve GHG reduction targets; and
• Includes a wide range of control measures designed to decrease emissions of air pollutants that are most harmful to Bay Area residents, such as particulate matter, ozone, and toxic air contaminants; to reduce emissions of methane and other “Super-GHGs” that are potent climate pollutants in the near term; and to decrease emissions of carbon dioxide by reducing fossil fuel combustion.

BAAQMD CEQA
Air Quality Guidelines. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (“BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines”) were prepared to assist in the evaluation of air quality impacts of projects and plans proposed within the Bay Area. The guidelines provide recommended procedures for evaluating potential City of Fremont 20
air impacts during the environmental review process, consistent with CEQA requirements, and include recommended thresholds of significance, mitigation measures, and background air quality information.

They also include recommended assessment methodologies for air toxics, odors, and GHG emissions. In 2023, the BAAQMD published an updated version of the CEQA Guidelines. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines include thresholds to evaluate project impacts to protectively evaluate the potential effects of the project on air quality. These protective thresholds are appropriate in the context of the size, scale, and location of the proposed project.

Local Regulations
The Conservation
Element of the City of Fremont General Plan9 includes air quality policies and implementation measures intended to improve air quality over current conditions to meet or exceed State and regional standards. The following policies and implementation measures are applicable to the project:
• Policy 7-7.2: Reduce Air Pollution Levels. Reduce City of Fremont air contaminant levels and particulate emissions below BAAQMD attainment levels, in particular, ozone and particulate matter levels.

Implementation 7-7.2.A: Construction Practices. Require construction practices that reduce dust and other particulate emissions and require watering of exposed areas at construction sites.

Implementation 7-7.2.B:

Reducing Fireplace Emissions. Ensure new development
complies with the City’s Wood Burning Fireplace Ordinance to assist in reducing fireplace particulate emissions.
• Policy 7-7.3: Land Use Planning to Minimize Health Impacts from Toxic Air Contaminants.

Coordinate land use planning with air quality data and local transportation planning to reduce the potential for long-term exposure to toxic air contaminants (TAC) from permanent sources that affect the community.

Implementation 7-7.3.A: Limit
New TAC Sources. Evaluate new sources of TAC
emissions pursuant to BAAQMD guidelines and thresholds for an increased health risk of no more than 10 additional incidents of cancer per million exposures or contribute to a cumulative risk in excess of 100 additional incidents of cancer per million exposures.

Implementation 7-7.3.B:

Limit New Residential Development in High Risk Areas. For infill development sites within existing neighborhoods, apply thresholds for review when new sensitive receptors are within areas exposed to health risk levels in excess of 100 additional incidents of cancer per million exposures. Infill development also includes conditional development of a mixed use and urban residential development nature within residential and commercial areas of Centers and Urban Corridors.

When considering
land use changes that add sensitive receptor uses outside of existing neighborhoods, apply thresholds for review when new sensitive receptors are within areas exposed to health risk levels in excess of 10 additional incidents of cancer per million exposures.

Implementation 7-7.3.C:

Incorporate TAC Controls with New Development. New
development projects with sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of a freeway or major TAC source shall assess the TAC health risk for the site and incorporate, to the maximum extent feasible, risk reduction measures to reduce exposure to TAC. Risk reduction measures may include, but not be limited to, project phasing, site orientation, distance separations, landscape buffering, building air filtration systems, modified building design or building type, or off site improvements at a TAC source.

In addition,
the City of Fremont Municipal Code (FMC) identifies standard development requirements for construction-related emissions in Section 18.218.050. FMC Section 18.218.050 requires the implementation of the BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures for all proposed development projects and the implementation of additional Supplemental Measures when construction emissions are above the BAAQMD’s thresholds. These are detailed under items a) and c) below.

City of Fremont 21

1.3.2 Discussion
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The applicable air quality plan is the BAAQMD 2017 Clean Air Plan (Clean Air Plan), which defines control strategies to reduce emissions and ambient concentrations of air pollutants; safeguard public health by reducing exposure to air pollutants that pose the greatest health risk, with an emphasis on protecting the communities most heavily affected by air pollution; and reduce GHG emissions to protect the climate.

The BAAQMD
recommends analyzing a project’s consistency with current air quality plan primary goals and control measures. The impact would be presumed significant if the project would conflict with or obstruct attainment of the primary goals or implementation of the control measures.

Clean Air Plan Goals. The primary goals of the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan are: (1) Attain all state and national air quality standards, (2) Eliminate disparities among Bay Area communities in cancer health risk from toxic air contaminants, (3) Reduce Bay Area GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 (this third goal is addressed in Section 1.8: Greenhouse Gas Emissions.)
The BAAQMD has
established significance thresholds for project construction and operational impacts at a level at which the cumulative impact of exceeding these thresholds would have an adverse impact on the region’s attainment of air quality standards. The health and hazards thresholds were established to help protect public health. As discussed in the project’s Air Quality Memo prepared for the City by LSA Associates and summarized in items b) through d) below, construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in the generation of criteria air pollutants that would exceed BAAQMD thresholds of significance. Therefore, the proposed project would not obstruct obtainment of the Clean Air Plan goals.

Clean Air
Plan Control Measures. The control strategies of the Clean Air Plan include measures in the following categories: Stationary Source Measures, Transportation Measures, Energy Measures, Building Measures, Agriculture Measures, Natural and Working Lands Measures, Waste Management Measures, Water Measures, and Super-GHG Pollutants Measures. The proposed project’s compliance with each of these control measures is discussed below.

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

Transportation Control
Measures. The BAAQMD identifies Transportation Control Measures as part of the Clean Air Plan to decrease emissions of criteria pollutants, TACs, and GHGs by reducing demand for motor vehicle travel, promoting efficient vehicles and transit service, decarbonizing transportation fuels, and electrifying motor vehicles and equipment. The proposed project would result in the redevelopment of the site with a research and development manufacturing/office campus on an infill site that would locate employees near existing commercial, industrial, recreational, and residential uses, reducing the demand for travel by single occupancy vehicles. The proposed project would also provide EV charging and pedestrian and bicyclist amenities, including crosswalks, sidewalks, bicycle parking, and landscaping, which would also help to reduce the demand for travel by single occupancy vehicles. In addition, Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) Bus Routes Lines 32 and 621 operate adjacent to the proposed project and 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 mile from the project site. The Fremont Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station is also located 4 miles northeast of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would support the ability to use alternative modes of transportation, would promote initiatives to reduce vehicle trips and VMT, and would increase the use of alternate means of transportation. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the identified Transportation Control Measures of the Clean Air Plan.

City of Fremont 22
Energy Control Measures. The Clean Air Plan also includes Energy Control Measures, which are designed to reduce emissions of criteria air pollutants, TACs, and GHGs by decreasing the amount of electricity consumed in the Bay Area, as well as decreasing the carbon intensity of the electricity used by switching to less GHG-intensive fuel sources for electricity generation. Since these measures apply to electrical utility providers and local government agencies (and not individual projects), the Energy Control Measures of the Clean Air Plan are not applicable to the proposed project.

Building Control
Measures. The BAAQMD has authority to regulate emissions from certain sources in buildings such as boilers and water heaters but has limited authority to regulate buildings themselves.

Therefore, the strategies in the control measures for this sector focus on working with local governments that do have authority over local building codes, to facilitate adoption of best GHG control practices and policies. The proposed project would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 standards of the California Code of Regulations, established by the CEC, regarding energy conservation and green building standards. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any of the Building Control Measures.

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

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

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

Water Control Measures.

The Water Control Measures focus on reducing emissions of criteria pollutants, TACs, and GHGs by encouraging water conservation, limiting GHG emissions from publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), and promoting the use of biogas recovery systems. Since these measures apply to POTWs and local government agencies (and not individual projects), the Water Control Measures are not applicable to the proposed project.

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

As discussed above,
the proposed project would generally implement the applicable measures outlined in the Clean Air Plan, including Transportation Control Measures. Therefore, the project would not disrupt or hinder implementation of a control measure from the Clean Air Plan.

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

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
b) Result
in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
The BAAQMD is currently designated as a nonattainment area for State and national ozone standards and national particulate matter AAQS. The BAAQMD’s nonattainment status is attributed to the region’s development history. Past, present, and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No City of Fremont 23
single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of AAQS. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant.

In developing
thresholds of significance for air pollutants, the BAAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions. Therefore, additional analysis to assess cumulative impacts is unnecessary. The following analysis assesses the potential project-level construction- and operation-related air quality impacts.

Short-Term Construction Emissions.

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

Project construction
activities would include demolition, site preparation, grading, building, paving, and architectural coating (painting). Construction-related effects on air quality from the proposed project would be greatest during the site preparation phase due to the disturbance of soils. If not properly controlled, these activities would temporarily generate particulate emissions. Sources of fugitive dust would include disturbed soils at the construction site. Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site would deposit dirt and mud on local streets, which could be an additional source of airborne dust after it dries. PM10 emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the nature and magnitude of construction activity and local weather conditions. PM10 emissions would depend on soil moisture, silt content of soil, wind speed, and the amount of operating equipment. Larger dust particles would settle near the source, while fine particles would be dispersed over greater distances from the construction site.

Water or
other soil stabilizers can be used to control dust, resulting in emission reductions of 50 percent or more. The BAAQMD has established standard measures for reducing fugitive dust emissions (PM10).

With the implementation of these Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, fugitive dust emissions from construction activities would not result in adverse air quality impacts.

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

As shown
in the air quality memo for the project by LSA Associates, construction emissions associated with the project would not exceed the BAAQMD’s thresholds for ROG, NOX, exhaust PM10, and exhaust PM2.5 emissions. FMC Section 18.218.050(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.

FMC 18.218.050(a)(1)
Construction-Related Emissions.

The following construction measures, as periodically amended by BAAQMD, are required for all proposed development projects to reduce construction-related fugitive dust and exhaust emissions:
(A) All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times daily.

City of Fremont 24
(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 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.

Long-Term Operational Emissions.

Long-term air pollutant emission impacts are those associated with mobile sources (e.g., vehicle trips), energy sources (e.g., natural gas), area sources (e.g., architectural coatings and the use of landscape maintenance equipment), and stationary sources (e.g., use of the fire pump) related to the proposed project.

PM10 emissions
result from running exhaust, tire and brake wear, and the entrainment of dust into the atmosphere from vehicles traveling on paved roadways. Entrainment of PM10 occurs when vehicle tires pulverize small rocks and pavement, and the vehicle wakes generate airborne dust. The contribution of tire and brake wear is small compared to the other particulate matter emissions processes. Gasoline- powered engines have small rates of particulate matter emissions compared with diesel-powered vehicles.

Typically, area
source emissions consist of direct sources of air emissions located at the project site, including architectural coatings, consumer products, and the use of landscape maintenance equipment.

Stationary source emissions would be associated with use of the fire pump.

As modeled in the air quality memo prepared for the project by LSA Associates, the project would not exceed the significance criteria for daily or annual ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions and would meet screening criteria for project with less than significant CO emissions. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not result in a significant net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or State AAQS and the projects impact under this topic would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required.

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

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
City of Fremont 25
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? BAAQMD identifies “Overburdened Communities” as those with residents already experiencing higher- than normal levels of air pollution. No portion of Fremont is identified as an overburdened community and therefore no supplemental environmental justice analysis is warranted in addition to the analysis below.3, 4 Sensitive receptors are defined as residential uses, schools, daycare centers, nursing homes, and medical centers. Individuals particularly vulnerable to diesel particulate matter are children, whose lung tissue is still developing, and the elderly, who may have serious health problems that can be aggravated by exposure to diesel particulate matter. Exposure from diesel exhaust associated with construction activity contributes to both cancer and chronic non-cancer health risks. Consistent with General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure AIR-2 and General Plan Implementation Measures 7-7.3.A through 7-7.3.B, the following sections evaluate the potential for exposure to TACs on sensitive receptors from construction and operation of the proposed project.

According to the
BAAQMD, a project would result in a significant impact if it would: individually expose sensitive receptors to TACs resulting in an increased cancer risk greater than 10.0 in one million, an increased non-cancer risk of greater than 1.0 on the hazard index (chronic or acute), or an annual average ambient PM2.5 increase greater than 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3). A significant cumulative impact would occur if the project, in combination with other projects located within a 1,000-foot radius of the project site, would expose sensitive receptors to TACs resulting in an increased cancer risk greater than 100.0 in one million, an increased non-cancer risk of greater than 10.0 on the hazard index (chronic), or an ambient PM2.5 increase greater than 0.8 μg/m3 on an annual average basis.

The proposed
project site is located in an urban area in close proximity to existing residential uses that could be exposed to diesel emission exhaust during the construction period. As such, to estimate the potential health risk from project construction equipment exhaust (including diesel particulate matter), a dispersion model was used to translate an emission rate from the source location to a concentration at the receptor location (i.e., a nearby residential land use). Dispersion modeling varies from a simpler, more conservative screening-level analysis to a more complex and refined detailed analysis. This refined assessment was conducted using CARB’s exposure methodology, with the air dispersion modeling performed using the USEPA dispersion model AERMOD. The model provides a detailed estimate of exhaust concentrations based on site and source geometry, source emissions strength, distance from the source to the receptor, and site specific meteorological data.

As shown
in Table C of the LSA Air Quality Memo, the risk associated with project construction at the maximally exposed individual (MEI) would be 12.44 in one million, which would exceed the BAAQMD cancer risk of 10 in one million. The results of the analysis also indicate that the total chronic hazard index would be 0.009 and acute hazard index would be negligible, which would both be below the threshold of

1.0; the PM2.5 concentration would be 0.049 μg/m3, which would not exceed the BAAQMD significance threshold of 0.30 μg/m3. Therefore, implementation of the supplemental construction measures identified in FMC Section 18.218.050(a)(2) would be required.

FMC 18.218.050(a)(2)
Construction-Related Emissions –
Supplemental Measures. The following supplemental construction measures, as periodically amended by BAAQMD, are required for all proposed development projects that would exceed the thresholds of significance for construction criteria air pollutant and precursors provided in the most recent BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines:
(A) All
exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified by lab samples or moisture probe. 3 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2022, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, Chapter 2.
4 The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), on behalf of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), last updated October 2021, Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool: CalEnviroScreen Version 4.0, available at https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40.

City of Fremont 26
(B) All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph.
(C) Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction. Wind breaks should have at maximum 50 percent air porosity. (D) Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established. (E) The simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground-disturbing construction activities on the same area at any one time shall be limited. Activities shall be phased to reduce the total area of surfaces disturbed at any one time.
(F) All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site. (G) Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road shall be treated with a six- to 12- inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel.
(H) Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent. (I) Idling time of diesel-powered construction equipment shall be limited to two minutes. (J) The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment (more than 50 horsepower) to be used in the construction project (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a project-wide fleet-average 20 percent nitrogen oxide (NOx) reduction and 45 percent particulate matter (PM) reduction compared to the most recent Air Resources Board fleet average. Acceptable options for reducing emissions include the use of late model engines, low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, 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. The following construction measures, as periodically amended by BAAQMD, are required for all proposed development projects to reduce construction-related fugitive dust and exhaust emissions:

Based on
these requirements of FMC Section 18.218.050(a)(2), the project was modeled assuming the use of construction equipment that meets the CARB Tier 2 emissions standards equipped with Level 3 diesel particulate filters or equivalent. As shown in Table D of the LSA Air Quality Memo, 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.

Once the
project is constructed, the project would not be a source of substantial emissions. Therefore, nearby sensitive receptors are not expected to be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations during project construction or operation.

There is nothing
peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding exposure of sensitive populations to substantial pollutant concentrations. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site City of Fremont 27
or cumulative, for this topic and there is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR.

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
During construction, the various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on site would create localized odors. These odors would be temporary and are not likely to be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the project site. Additionally, the proposed uses that would be developed within the project site are not expected to produce any offensive odors that would result in frequent odor complaints.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

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

Potential Impact: Less Than significant
Mitigation: None required
References

1. City of Fremont, 2023. City of Fremont Municipal Code, Chapter 18, Planning and Zoning.

Available online at www.fremont.gov/fmc.

2. City of Fremont Waste Handling Guidelines. Available online at www.fremont.gov/whg.

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

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

5. LSA Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Memo, February 7th 31, 2024, prepared for the City of Fremont by LSA Associates.

6. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2022, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, available at: https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated- ceqa-guidelines.

7. BAAQMD, adopted April 19, 2017, Spare the Air - Cool the Climate: A Blueprint for Clean Air and Climate Protection in the Bay Area, available at https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/air-quality-plans/current- plans.

City of Fremont 28

1.4 BIOLOGICAL 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) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special-
status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
LTS  ☐ SDR FMC

18.218.050(b)(1):

Burrowing Owl.

18.218.050(b)(2):

Nesting Birds.

LTS with
SDRs
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations
or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
LTS  ☐ - LTS
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
state or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means?
LTS  - LTS
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
LTS  LTS
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
LTS  ☐ LTS
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan?
LTS  ☐ - No Impact

1.4.1 Environmental Setting
The 24.2-acre project site is mostly vacant undeveloped land with the northernmost and southernmost parcel developed with a solar farm and the middle parcel is developed with an existing single-story industrial building. The project site’s location is depicted on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) City of Fremont 29
Newark, California topographic quadrangle map. The site mostly flat but is surrounded by a small berm.

The average elevation of the site is approximately 15 feet above sea level.

The proposed project would develop a six-building research and development manufacturing/office campus totaling approximately 450,420 square feet of building area, including five new multi-story buildings and the renovation of the existing one-story-high bay building. The proposed project would provide landscaping throughout the project site with amenity areas located between the buildings. The buildings would be designed for flexibility to include manufacturing and loading needs, including loading and service areas located at the rear of the buildings towards the interior of the site, screened for the public. Typical hours would be 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The project also includes parking fields containing a total of 1,379 parking spaces, plus hardscape and hardscape improvements.

Regulatory Setting:

Federal Endangered
Species Act.

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has jurisdiction over federally listed threatened and endangered plant and animal species. The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) protects listed species from harm or “take,” which is broadly defined as to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Any such activity can be defined as a “take” even if it is unintentional or accidental. Listed plant species are typically provided less protection than listed animals.

An endangered species
is one that is considered in danger of becoming extinct throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A threatened species is one that is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. Federal agencies involved in permitting projects that may result in take of federally listed species (e.g., United States Army Corps of Engineers [USACE]) are required under Section 7 of the FESA to consult with the USFWS prior to issuing such permits. Any activity that could result in the take of a federally listed species and is not authorized as part of a Section 7 consultation requires an FESA Section 10 take permit from the USFWS.

Clean Water Act Section 404 (33 United States Code Sections 1251 to 1376).

The USACE is responsible under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) to regulate the discharge of fill material into waters of the U.S. (WOTUS). The CWA provides the primary means for the protection of “waters of the United States,” including wetlands. Under Section 404 of the CWA, the USACE, under the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), regulates the discharge of dredged and fill material into WOTUS, including wetlands.

The CWA addresses “navigable waters,” defined in the statute as WOTUS. The USACE has further refined the definition through various Clean Water Rules, including wetlands as a subset of WOTUS.

Wetlands are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas (33 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 328.3[b]; 40 CFR 230.3[t]). Wetlands contain three distinct parameters: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology.

WOTUS generally not considered to be USACE-jurisdictional include nontidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land, artificially irrigated areas, artificial lakes or ponds excavated on dry land used for irrigation or stock watering, small artificial water bodies such as swimming pools, and water-filled depressions (51 Federal Register 41, 217 1986). In addition, a Supreme Court ruling (South Waste Agency of North Cook County [SWANCC] vs. USACE, January 9, 2001) determined that the USACE exceeded its statutory authority by asserting CWA jurisdiction over “an abandoned sand and gravel pit in northern Illinois, which provides habitat for migratory birds.” Based solely on the use of such waters by migratory birds, the Supreme Court’s holding was strictly limited to waters that are “non-navigable, isolated, and intrastate.”
The Supreme Court further addressed the extent of the USACE’s jurisdiction in the consolidated cases Rapanos v. United States (No. 04-1034) and Carabell v. United States (No. 04-1384 [USACE and City of Fremont 30
USEPA 2007]), referred to as “Rapanos.” In Rapanos, a sharply divided Court issued multiple opinions, none of which garnered the support of a majority of the Justices. This created substantial uncertainty as to which jurisdictional test should be used in routine jurisdictional determinations.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, which encompasses California, answered this in Northern California River Watch v. City of Healdsburg (August 11, 2006). In this case, the Court held that Justice Kennedy’s opinion in Rapanos provided the controlling rule of law. Under that rule, wetlands or other waters that are not navigable are subject to USACE jurisdiction if they have “a significant nexus to waters that are navigable in fact.” As Justice Kennedy explained, whether a “significant nexus” exists in any given situation will need to be decided on a case-by-case basis, depending on site-specific circumstances. The USEPA and USACE subsequently developed an instructional guidebook on how to apply these rulings for all future jurisdictional determinations (USACE and USEPA 2007), as well as a memorandum providing guidance to implement the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Rapanos (Grumbles and Woodley 2007).

On January 18, 2023, the USACE published in the Federal Register the final Revised Definition of “Waters of the United States (88 Federal Register 2004). On March 25, 2023, the United States Supreme Court modified the January 2023 definition of WOTUS in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (No. 21-454), herein referred to as “Sackett.” Specifically, the Court considered the “significant nexus” standard established under Rapanos to be inconsistent with the CWA while upholding the plurality standard that the USACE jurisdiction is limited to WOTUS that are “relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water” that can be described in ordinary parlance as “streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes.” The Supreme Court further affirmed that wetlands can be considered WOTUS when a continuous surface connection to bodies that are WOTUS are present and that no clear boundary exists between WOTUS and wetlands. Sackett further revised the CWA by removing interstate wetlands from consideration as WOTUS.

On September 8, 2023, the USACE published a final rule conforming the January 2023 rule with the Sackett decision, removing the “significant nexus” standard. The amended rule is operative in California. Features currently included in the definition of WOTUS per 33 CFR 328.3(b) include:
(1) Waters which are:
(i) Currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;
(ii) The territorial seas; or
(iii) Interstate waters;
(2) Impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under this definition, other than impoundments of waters identified under paragraph (a)(5) of this section
(3) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water (4) Wetlands adjacent to the following waters
(i) Waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, or (ii) Relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water identified in paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this section and with a continuous surface connection to those waters
(5) Intrastate lakes and ponds, streams, or wetlands not identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water with a continuous surface connection to the waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(3) of this section City of Fremont 31
Features currently excluded from identification as WOTUS per 33 CFR 328.3(b) include:
• Intrastate streams and wetlands.
• Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons, designed to meet the requirements of
the CWA.
• Prior converted cropland designated by the Secretary of Agriculture. The exclusion would cease upon a change
of use, which means that the area is no longer available for the production of agricultural commodities. Notwithstanding the determination of an area’s status as prior converted cropland by any other federal agency, for the purposes of the CWA, the final authority regarding CWA jurisdiction remains with the USEPA. • Ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only dry land and that do not carry a relatively
permanent flow of water.
• Artificially irrigated areas that would revert to dry land if the irrigation ceased. • Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating or diking dry land to collect and retain water and used exclusively
for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. • Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating or
diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons. • Water-filled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel, unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of WOTUS.

Swales and erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes) characterized by low-volume, Infrequent, or short-duration flow.

In general, a USACE permit must be obtained before placing fill or grading in jurisdictional wetlands or other WOTUS. The USACE will be required to consult with the USFWS and/or National Marine Fisheries Services under Section 7 of the FESA if the action subject to CWA permitting could result in take of federally listed species.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the taking, hunting, killing, selling, purchasing, etc. of migratory birds, parts of migratory birds, and their eggs and nests. As used in the MBTA, the term “take” is defined as “to pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect, kill, or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect, or kill, unless the context otherwise requires.” This act covers all bird species native to the United States.

California Endangered Species Act.

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has jurisdiction over State-listed endangered, threatened, and rare plant and animal species under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA).

In addition, species designated as “candidates” for listing under CESA are protected by its provisions.

CDFW also maintains a list of Species of Special Concern, defined as species that appear to be vulnerable to extinction because of declining populations, limited ranges, and/or continuing threats.

Species of Special Concern are not afforded legal protection under CESA.

Fish and Game Code Section 86 defines “take” as to “Hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.”
California Fish and Game Code.

CDFW is also responsible for enforcing the California Fish and Game Code, which contains several provisions potentially relevant to construction projects. For example, Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code governs CDFW’s issuance of Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements. Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements are required whenever proposed project activities would substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake designated as such by CDFW.

The California Fish and Game Code also designates some animal species as fully protected, which may not be taken or possessed without a permit from the California Fish and Game Commission and/or CDFW. These take permits do not allow “incidental take” (except in limited circumstances) and are more restrictive than the take allowed under Section 2081 of the CESA. Fully protected species are listed in Sections 3511 (birds), 4700 (mammals), 5050 (reptiles and amphibians), and 5515 (fish) of the California Fish and Game Code.

City of Fremont 32
Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibits the take, possession, or needless destruction of the nest or eggs of any bird. Subsection 3503.5 specifically prohibits the take, possession, or destruction of any birds in the order of Falconiformes (hawks and eagles) or Strigiformes (owls) and their nests. These provisions, along with the federal MBTA, essentially serve To protect nesting native birds. Nonnative species are not afforded any protection under the MBTA or California Fish and Game Code (except that hunting regulations apply to some nonnative species listed as gamebirds).

California Environmental Quality Act.

CEQA applies to “projects” proposed to be undertaken or requiring approval by State or local government agencies. Projects are defined as having the potential to have physical impact on the environment.

Special-Status Species
For the purposes of CEQA and this assessment, special-status species are defined as follows:
• Species that are listed, formally proposed, or designated as candidates for listing as threatened or endangered under the FESA;
• Species that are listed, or designated as candidates for listing, as rare, threatened, or endangered under the CESA;
• Wildlife
species designated as Species of Special Concern or Fully Protected by the CDFW; • Species that meet the definition of rare, threatened, or endangered under Section 15380 of the CEQA guidelines; or
• Species
that are considered a taxa of special concern by local agencies.

Riparian Habitat and Other Sensitive Natural Communities.

The California Wildlife Conservation Board defines riparian areas as “transitional zones between terrestrial and aquatic systems that exhibit characteristics of both systems. They are typically vegetated with lush growths of grasses, forbs, shrubs, and trees that are tolerant of periodic flooding and have sediments that are rich in nutrients and organic matter.” CDFW tracks the occurrences of natural plant communities that are of limited distribution statewide, or within a county or region where they are often vulnerable to the effects of development projects. In the most recent list of vegetation alliances/natural communities recognized in California, alliances with a NatureServe State ranking code of S1 through S3 are “highly imperiled” and impacts to “high-quality occurrences” of these communities may be considered significant under CEQA. Whether a natural plant community is imperiled or not can be determined by checking CDFW’s List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations (CDFW 2010). Some imperiled vegetation associations can be difficult to distinguish from common plant communities without a quantitative vegetation description. For example, patches of native grassland comprising at least 15 percent relative cover in a grassland area are considered a sensitive natural community by CDFW.

City of Fremont Municipal Code
The City of Fremont’s municipal code has many performance standards for development. Measures addressing biological resources that may be relevant to this proposed project are in section

18.218.050 b) and include:
• (1) Burrowing Owl
• (2) Nesting Birds
• (3) Roosting Bats
• (4) California Tiger Salamander
City of Fremont 33

1.4.2 Discussion
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
The LSA
Biological Resources Assessment characterized the existing biological conditions through records searches and a field survey, including the potential for sensitive or special-status species and habitats that could be impacted by the proposed project.

The site is
largely developed with buildings and associated parking lots. There is maintained ornamental landscaping around the buildings and along roadsides. There is a grassy field on the southern side of the site that showed evidence of being used as a homeless encampment in places but was unoccupied at the time. A portion of the field was surrounded by chain link fencing and had construction equipment and materials.

The LSA Biological
Resources Assessment concludes that due to its disturbed condition, dense cover of invasive species, and the lack of suitable soil substrates (e.g., salt marsh, open water, vernal pools, chaparral, saline or alkaline substrates), the project site does not provide suitable habitat for any special- status plant species. No special-status wildlife species or their sign were detected. Based upon analysis of the record of occurrences, conditions observed during the surveys, and an analysis of habitat requirements for individual species, only two special-status wildlife species were determined to have some potential to occur: burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) and white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus).

Standard development requirements related to burrowing owl FMC 18.218.050(b)(1) and nesting birds

18.218.050(b)(2) would therefore apply.

FMC 18.218.050(b)(1)
Burrowing Owl. New development projects with the potential to impact burrowing owl habitat through grading, demolition, and/or new construction shall implement the following measures prior to grading or ground disturbing activities:
(A) Preconstruction Surveys. Preconstruction surveys for burrowing owls shall be conducted prior to the initiation of all project activities within potential burrowing owl nesting and roosting habitat (i.e., agricultural habitat with burrows of California ground squirrels) to determine if suitable burrowing owl habitat is present. Surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in conformance with the most recent requirements and guidelines of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The biologist shall determine the number and time frame (prior to construction) of surveys to be conducted.
(B) Implement Buffer Zones. Areas currently occupied by burrowing owls shall be avoided for the duration of residing on site and/or the nesting period (February 1st through August 31st). The biologist will recommend a suitable buffer zone distance for avoidance of nesting or roosting habitat. (C) Passive Relocation. If burrowing owls cannot be avoided by the proposed project, then additional measures, such as passive relocation during the nonbreeding season, may be utilized to reduce any potential impacts. Measures for successful relocation shall be recommended by a qualified biologist in conformance with CDFW requirements and guidelines. (D) Initiation of Construction Activities. When a qualified biologist is able to determine that burrowing owls are no longer occupying the site and passive relocation is deemed successful, construction activities may continue. The applicant shall submit the determination of the biologist to the planning manager for authorization to continue.

FMC 18.218.050(b)(2)
Nesting Birds . New development projects with the potential to impact nesting birds through tree or shrub removal shall implement the following measures prior to removal of any trees/shrubs, grading, or ground disturbing activities:

City of Fremont 34
(A) Avoidance. Proposed projects shall avoid construction activities during the bird nesting season (February 1st through August 31st).
(B) Preconstruction Surveys. If construction activities are scheduled during the nesting season, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey to identify any potential nesting activity. The biologist shall determine the number and time frame (prior to construction) of surveys to be conducted.
(C) Protective Buffer Zone(s). If the survey indicates the presence of nesting birds, protective buffer zones shall be established around the nests. The size of the buffer zone shall be recommended by the biologist in consultation with the CDFW depending on the species of nesting bird and level of potential disturbance.
(D) Initiation of Construction Activities. The buffer zones shall remain in place until the young have fledged and are foraging independently. A qualified biologist shall monitor the nests closely until it is determined the nests are no longer active, at which time construction activities may commence within the buffer area.

The LSA
Biological Resources Assessment determined that special-status bats and California tiger salamander do not have the potential to occur on site and therefore related SDRs under FMC

18.218.050(b) would not be applicable to the project.

There is nothing
peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding special-status species. 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
a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The project site is located within a built-up urban area. There are no nearby identified riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, polices, or regulations. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have also not identified any riparian or other sensitive habitat in the vicinity of the proposed project. The proposed project would drain into existing flood control channels, after treating stormwater runoff onsite, which are not natural watercourses which eventually flow to the San Francisco Bay. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on riparian or other sensitive community and no mitigation would be required.

There is nothing
peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding riparian or other sensitive natural community. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic 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) Have
a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
A total of 0.987 acre of an isolated seasonal wetland was mapped in the review area as shown in the LSA Aquatic Resources Delineation study. The depression may have ponded water ephemerally, following heavy rainstorms in the winter. Even in normal or heavy rainfall years, the ponding would not be permanent or even relatively permanent. The presence of debris from an encampment within the wetland area also indicates it does not flood for any significant amount of time.

This depression is isolated from possibly being tributary to or otherwise connecting to any larger City of Fremont 35
water bodies or traditional navigable waters by the berm that surrounds the entire study area.

The wetland does not meet the definition of a WOTUS that would be regulated or protected under the CWA for the following reasons:
(1) (i) The wetland has not been used nor is it susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, nor is it subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; (ii) It is not a territorial seas;
(iii) it is wholly within California and not an interstate water; (2) The
wetland is not an impoundments of waters otherwise defined as WOTUS; (3) The
wetland is not tributary to any of waters described in (1) or (2) above that are relatively permanent, standing or
continuously flowing bodies of water
(4) The wetland is separated by a berm and distance and therefore not adjacent to or have a continuous surface connection with the following waters:
(i) Waters identified in paragraph (1) above, or
(ii) Relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water identified in paragraph (2) or (3) above.
(5) The wetland is not relatively permanent and it does not have a continuous surface connection to the waters identified in paragraph (1) or (3) above.

Due to the isolated nature of the depression on the site and the absence of any overland connection to traditional navigable waters or other waters of the U.S., this isolated depression is a not a jurisdictional wetland and therefore not federally protected. The project would not have a significant impact on state or federally protected wetlands.

There is nothing peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding state or federally protected wetlands. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic 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) Interfere substantially
with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
The proposed project site is located on an existing developed office site. The project site is within an urban area and there are no native fish or wildlife species in the immediate vicinity No special-status plant or animal species were detected on the site during the April 2, 2024 field inspection. No bat roosts, bird rookeries, or other wildlife nurseries are present on the site. Only two special-status wildlife species, burrowing owl and white-tailed kite, have any potential to occur on the site.

The proposed project
would not directly impact the lagoons or marsh habitat associated with the adjacent East Bay Regional Park District lands. Waterfowl, shorebirds, and other birds that migrate through, forage and/or nest in the park are likely habituated to disturbance caused by park users and the existing commercial activities on the site and would tolerate some level of nearby construction-related disturbance. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact and no mitigation is required.

There is nothing
peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding the movement of fish or wildlife species or migratory wildlife corridors, or impeding the use of native wildlife nursery sites. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic and there is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
City of Fremont 36
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
As discussed under items a) through d) above, the project would comply with applicable regulations and standard development requirements of the City Municipal Code.

Chapter 18.215 Tree Preservation of the City of Fremont’s Municipal Code requires a tree removal permit for removing, damaging, or relocating the following trees on private property:

1. A tree having a diameter at breast height (DBH) of 6 inches or more and located on a vacant or underdeveloped lot;

2. A tree having a DBH of 6 inches or more and located on a developed lot, which is the subject of a contemplated or pending application for a development project;

3. A native tree or tree of exceptional adaptability to the Fremont area having a DBH of 10 inches or more;

4. A tree having a DBH of 18 inches or more;

5. A tree that was required by the City to be planted or retained as mitigation for the removal of a tree;

6. A tree planted or retained as a condition of any City ‐conferred development project approval, including approvals conferred prior to adoption of this chapter; or

7. One of six or more trees of the same species that are located on the same lot and that each have 6 or more inches in DBH.

The site currently contains 372 trees of various species and size. 353 of these trees would be removed. A total of 523 new trees would be planted within the site’s perimeter landscape easement, within the project’s parking fields, and in open space amenity areas proposed adjacent to each project building.

Tree removal would be done in accordance with the City of Fremont Tree Preservation Ordinance (FMC

18.215). Removed trees would be replaced on site with new trees. Any trees removed and not replaced would be subject to tree mitigation fees to add to the urban canopy elsewhere in the City. The project would include the planting of 523 new trees, which is anticipated to satisfy tree removal permit requirements. There are no other local policies or ordinances related to biological resources that could be applicable to the project site. The project would have a less than significant impact related to local biological resources policies or ordinances.

There is nothing
peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic 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
f) Conflict
with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
The project site is not located within the limits of a conservation plan and therefore would not conflict with any adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. Therefore the project has no potential impact resulting from a conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan and no mitigation is required.

Potential Impact: No Impact
Mitigation: None required
References

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

City of Fremont 37

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

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

4. LSA Biological Resources Assessment prepared May 2024.

5. LSA Aquatic Resources Delineation prepared July 2024.

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

City of Fremont 38

1.5 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
a) Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a historical
resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
SU, even with
MM
Cutural-1
 ☐ - LTS
b) Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
LTS with MM
Cultural-2
 ☐ SDR FMC

18.218.050(d)(2)
Accidental Discovery
of Cultural Resources,

SDR FMC

18.218.050(d)(3):

Archaeological
Monitoring
LTS with
SDR
c) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of dedicated
cemeteries?
LTS with MM
Cultura-4
 SDR FMC

18.218.050(d)(2):

Accidental Discovery
of Cultural Resources
LTS with
SDR

1.5.1 Environmental Setting
The project site would develop five new light industrial buildings totaling 407,250 square feet and renovation of an existing 43,172-square-foot light industrial building on the 24.2-acre site bounded by Paseo Padre Parkway, Ardenwood Boulevard, and Commerce Drive in the Ardenwood Forest—New Town Planned District (P-81-15) and North Fremont Community Plan Area. Two existing light industrial buildings along the Ardenwood Boulevard frontage (34175 and 34325 Ardenwood Boulevard) would remain unmodified by the project.

A Cultural
Resources Study conducted by LSA consisted of background research (consisting of a records search at the Northwest Information Center [NWIC], a review of historical maps and aerial photographs, and a review of published geological information), a search of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) at the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and an archaeological field survey. The following environmental Setting was informed by this study.

The project is along the southeast edge of San Francisco Bay (Bay), a region characterized by estuaries, coastal marsh lands, coastal prairie, and willow groves (Byrd and Allen 2010). During the historic period, multiple creeks passed through or near the project area before draining into marshes and then the Bay. One of these, Ardenwood Creek, bisected the project area and was bordered by willow groves.

Bay Area environments
historically contained varied animal resources such as fish, shellfish, large mammals, and a range of plant resources. Native large mammals like Tule elk (Cervus elaphus nannodes), pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), and grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) were hunted out by the 1900s. Most of the bay marsh lands were destroyed by landfill projects and construction.

The project
area currently sits 10 feet above sea level on the valley floor, about 0.4 mile southeast of Alameda Creek/Coyote Hills Slough and 0.1 mile east of an unnamed stream. Holocene-age alluvial gravel, sand, and clay (Qa) comprise the surficial valley sediments in the area. Geotechnical exploration of the project area (consisting of five cone penetration tests that sampled the northern and southern portions) indicates these alluvial deposits City of Fremont 39
are very thick, extending at least 45 to 50 feet below the surface (Ohlsen 2023). The soil consists of Omni silty clay loam, which forms on floodplains and typically features silty clay loam (0─6 inches below ground surface [bgs]) overlying clay (6─52 inches bgs) and stratified clay loam to silty clay (52 to at least 60 inches bgs) (NRCS 2024). The typical profile for the Omni series includes buried A horizons (paleosols) from approximately 2 to 3.5 feet below surface (A11bg and A12bg) and from approximately 4 feet below surface to the base of the profile (IIIA1bg and IIIACb3g).

Two archaeological
resources were previously documented within the project area, south of the existing industrial building. Resource P-01-000171 (CA-ALA-449H) was originally recorded as light artifact scatters and a possible cistern near introduced trees that possibly related to a ca. 1850s–1860s farmhouse on land owned by A. Ross (Anastasio and Guedon 1984a). The house and associated structures had been destroyed by the time the site was recorded in 1984 following grading for the existing industrial park. Resource P-01-000170 (CA-ALA- 000448H) was recorded as a light artifact scatter possibly relating to a ca. 1850s–1860s farmhouse on land owned by W. Imlay (Anastasio and Guedon 1984b). By the time the site was recorded in 1984 following grading for the existing industrial park and Paseo Padre Parkway, the house had been moved to Ardenwood Regional Preserve and any other structures had been destroyed. At the time of recording, both sites were considered to be not significant, presumably due to their heavily impacted condition.

Historical maps and aerial
photographs from the 1940s and later show two centrally located structures (adjacent to the current industrial building location) that may correspond to the ca.1850s–1860s farmhouses. By 1948, these structures were separated by a road (the old Patterson Ranch Road) that bisected the project area from southwest to northeast. Other historical maps show a single structure in the southeast portion of the project area from at least 1899 to 1915. By the mid-1940s and continuing through the early 1980s, the project area contained predominantly agricultural land bisected by rural roads that surrounded a central area of trees and residential or farm structures. Archaeological site records indicate the two ca. 1850s–1860s farmhouses were relocated or destroyed by 1984. The current configuration of industrial buildings and roads within and around the project area was established by 1987.

During the
archaeological survey, LSA discovered several historic-period artifacts scattered across the west half of the open field in the southern end of the project area. Manufacture dates for the artifacts overlap the time frame (ca. 1850s to 1860s) identified for the two farmhouse sites previously recorded just to the north in the center of the project area. Although the artifacts were found outside the recorded site locations, this temporal relationship suggests the artifacts were originally associated with those sites and were subsequently re-deposited through years of plowing the field. The artifacts were recorded in an update for archaeological site P-01-000171 (CA-ALA- 449H), the recorded site closest to the isolates.

LSA also
noted sparse shell fragments at different locations within the project area, all within disturbed landscaped or plowed contexts. No pre-contact archaeological evidence was observed near the shell, or anywhere else in the project area.

1.5.2 Discussion
a) Cause
a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
The current configuration of industrial buildings and roads within and around the project area was established around 1987. The project does not propose demolition of existing buildings and none of the existing buildings in the project area are historic age (50 years or more). Therefore the project would not have a significant impact with respect to historical resources. (Historic-period archaeological resources are addressed below.)
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 historical 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.

City of Fremont 40
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Based on the previous recording of the two historic-period farmhouse sites and the discovery of associated re-deposited artifacts during LSA’s survey, the project area has sensitivity for historic-period archaeological resources. Although the surface evidence of the recorded sites appears to have been removed during construction of the existing industrial park, it is possible that buried in situ features (such as wells or privies) and deposits remain within the project area. The project area also has potential for pre-contact archaeological 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.

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 of cultural resources during ground disturbing excavation. Because the site-specific LSA Cultural Resources Study determined the sensitivity of the site warranted monitoring, FMC

18.218.050(d)(3)
Archaeological Monitoring would
additionally require archaeologist monitoring of all site-disturbing construction activities. These SDRs would minimize the potential impacts related to accidental discovery of archaeological resources and additional project-specific mitigation is not required.

FMC 18.218.050(d)(2)
Accidental Discovery
of Cultural Resources. The following requirements shall be met to address the potential for accidental discovery of cultural resources during ground disturbing excavation:
(A) The project proponent shall include a note on any plans that require ground disturbing excavation that there is a potential for exposing buried cultural resources. (B) The project proponent shall retain a professional archaeologist to provide a preconstruction briefing to supervisory personnel of any excavation contractor to alert them to the possibility of exposing buried cultural resources, including significant prehistoric archaeological resources. The briefing shall discuss any cultural resources, including archaeological objects, that could be exposed, the need to stop excavation at the discovery, and the procedures to follow regarding discovery protection and notification of the project proponent and archaeological team. (C) In
the event that any human remains or historical, archaeological or paleontological resources are discovered during ground disturbing excavation, the provisions of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.5(e) and (f), and of subsection (c)(2)(D) of this section, requiring cessation of work, notification, and immediate evaluation shall be followed.
(D) If resources
are discovered during ground disturbing activities that may be classified as historical, unique archaeological, or tribal cultural resources, ground disturbing activities shall cease immediately, and the planning manager shall be notified. The resources will be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist and, in the planning manager’s discretion, a tribal cultural monitor. If the resources are determined to be historical, unique archaeological, or tribal cultural resources, then a plan for avoiding the resources shall be prepared. If avoidance is infeasible, then all significant cultural materials recovered shall be, as necessary and at the discretion of the consulting archaeologist, subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and documentation according to current professional standards. Any plan for avoidance or mitigation shall be subject to the approval of the planning manager.

City of Fremont 41
(E) As used herein, “historical resource” means a historical resource as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a); “unique archaeological resource” means unique archaeological resource as defined by Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.2(g); and “tribal cultural resource” means tribal cultural resource as defined by Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21074. Collectively, these terms describe “significant cultural materials.”
FMC 18.218.050(d)(3)
Archaeological Monitoring .

New development projects with the potential to impact subsurface archaeological or cultural resources through grading, demolition, and/or new construction, if so determined by a site-specific study prepared by an archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s professional qualifications standards for archaeology, shall implement the following measures prior to any grubbing, grading, or ground disturbing activities:

An archaeologist
shall monitor construction-related ground disturbance within the vicinity of project site features identified as having the potential to include subsurface archaeological, cultural, or tribal cultural resources that could be impacted through ground-disturbing activities related to the construction of the project. Monitoring should continue until the archaeologist determines that there is a low potential for encountering subsurface archaeological, cultural, or tribal cultural resources. An archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s professional qualifications standards for archaeology shall oversee the monitoring. Any compensation for time and expenses related to this activity shall be borne by the project proponent.

The project
would be required to abide by these standard development requirements to protect any potential cultural resources within the project site inadvertently discovered during the course of development. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on historic resources and no mitigation is required.

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

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 archaeological 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
c) Disturb
any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? While there are no known human remains at the project site, any ground disturbance includes the potential for accidental discovery. As discussed under item a) above, FMC Section 18.218.050(d)(2):

Accidental Discovery of Cultural Resources (which supersedes General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure Cultural-4) details requirements to address the potential for accidental discovery, including for human remains.

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

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required.

References

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

City of Fremont 42

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

3. Cultural Resource Study LSA August 2024.

City of Fremont 43

1.6 ENERGY
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 potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption
of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
N/A  ☐ - LTS
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or
local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
N/A  ☐ - LTS
The General Plan Update EIR did not include an Energy analysis.

1.6.1 Environmental Setting
The project site is within the service territory of Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E). According to the California Energy Commission (CEC), total electricity consumption in the PG&E service area in 2022 was 77,887 gigawatt-hours (GWh) or 77,886,999,998 kilowatt-hours (kWh). Of this total, Alameda County consumed 10,395 GWh or 10,395,384,395 kWh.

PG&E is the natural gas service provider for the proposed project site. According to the CEC, total natural gas consumption in the PG&E service area in 2022 was 4,422 million therms (4,422,630,060 therms). Of this total, Alameda County consumed 377 million therms or 377,309,788 therms.

The average fuel economy for light‐duty vehicles (autos, pickups, vans, and SUVs) in the United States has steadily increased from about 14.9 miles per gallon (mpg) in 1980 to 22.9 mpg in 2021.

The average fuel economy for heavy-duty trucks in the United States has also steadily increased, from 5.7 mpg in 2013 to a projected 8.0 mpg in 2021. Based on fuel consumption obtained from the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) California Emissions Factor Model, Version 2021 (EMFAC2021), approximately 540.5 million gallons of gasoline and approximately 156.2 million gallons of diesel will be consumed from vehicle trips in Alameda County in 2024.

Regulatory Framework:

Federal and State agencies regulate energy use and consumption through various means and programs.

On the federal level, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), the U.S. Department of Energy, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) are three federal agencies with substantial influence over energy policies and programs. Generally, federal agencies influence and regulate transportation energy consumption through establishment and enforcement of fuel economy standards for automobiles and light trucks, through funding of energy-related research and development projects, and through funding for transportation infrastructure improvements. On the State level, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and the CEC are two agencies with authority over different aspects of energy.

The CPUC
regulates privately owned electric, natural gas, telecommunications, water, railroad, rail transit, and passenger transportation companies and serves the public interest by protecting consumers and ensuring the provision of safe, reliable utility service and infrastructure at reasonable rates, with a commitment to environmental enhancement and a healthy California economy.

City of Fremont 44
The CEC is the State's primary energy policy and planning agency. The CEC forecasts future energy needs, promotes energy efficiency, supports energy research, develops renewable energy resources, and plans for/directs state response to energy emergencies. The applicable federal, State, regional, and local regulatory framework is discussed in the Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas memo prepared for the City of Fremont by LSA Associates.

1.6.2 Discussion
a) Result
in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
The proposed project would be subject to the Green Building Code (Title 24) and as such, would be required to meet minimum energy efficiency standards, thereby reducing overall energy use during the life of the project. City Standard Development Requirements to Address Resource Protection (Chapter

18.218 of the Fremont Municipal Code) include a provision to limit idling of construction equipment during the construction phase. The Fremont Zoning Ordinance contains provisions to limit the intensity of outdoor lighting for this type of development, thereby helping to reduce energy consumption. The Fremont General Plan Conservation Element (Chapter 7 of the Fremont General Plan) contains policies to support energy efficiency through building/site design. These policies include measures such as public information on energy efficiency, support of PG&E energy efficiency programs, and regional cooperation on energy efficiency. The City’s Landscape Development Review Policies implement the State’s Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance (WELO) which requires the project to reduce landscape water consumption through design. Because of the required measures the project would have to take as part of the design and operation of the project, the proposed project would have a less than significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. Therefore, no mitigation would be required.

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

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
b) Conflict
with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency In 2002, the Legislature passed SB 1389, which required the CEC to develop an integrated energy plan every 2 years for electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuels for the Integrated Energy Policy Report.

The plan calls for the State to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the plan identifies a number of strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet operators in implementing incentive programs for ZEVs and their infrastructure needs, and encouragement of urban designs that reduce VMT and accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access.

The CEC’s
2023 Integrated Energy Policy Report provides the results of the CEC’s assessments of a variety of energy issues facing California. As indicated above, energy usage on the project site during construction would be temporary in nature and would be relatively small in comparison to the overall use in Alameda County. In addition, energy usage associated with operation of the proposed project would be relatively small in comparison to the overall use in Alameda County, and the State’s available energy resources. Therefore, energy impacts at the regional level would be negligible. Because California’s energy conservation planning actions are conducted at a regional level, and because the proposed project’s total impact on regional energy supplies would be minor, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct California’s energy conservation plans as described in the CEC’s Integrated Energy Policy Report. Additionally, as demonstrated above, the proposed project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy.

City of Fremont 45
There is nothing peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding conflicts with state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off- site or cumulative, for this topic and there is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR.

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
References

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

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

2. City of Fremont, 2024. City of Fremont Municipal Code, Chapter 15, Buildings and Construction. Available online at www.fremont.gov/fmc.

3. LSA Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Memo February 7, 2024, prepared for the City of Fremont by LSA Associates.

City of Fremont 46

1.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
City of Fremont 47
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) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for
the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? (Refer to
California Geological Survey Special
Publication 42.)?
LTS  ☐ - LTS
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? LTS  ☐ SDR FMC

18.218.050(e):

Geology and Soil
LTS with
SDR
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
LTS  ☐ SDR FMC

18.218.050(e):

Geology and Soil
LTS with
SDR
iv) Landslides? LTS  ☐ - LTS
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil?
LTS  ☐ - LTS
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
LTS  ☐ SDR FMC

18.218.050(e):

Geology and Soil
LTS with
SDR
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994, as updated),
creating substantial direct or indirect
risks to life or property?
LTS  ☐ SDR FMC

18.218.050(e):

Geology and Soil
LTS with
SDR
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
LTS  ☐ - No Impact
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
LTS with MM
Cultural-3
 ☐ SDR FMC

18.218.050(d)(2):

Accidental Discovery
of Cultural Resources
LTS with
SDR
City of Fremont 48

1.7.1 Environmental Setting
The Hayward Fault is located approximately 23,00 feet to the southeast of the project site. The project site is located in an earthquake induced landslide zone. As with any land in the San Francisco Bay Area, the project site could be subject to strong shaking during a major seismic event along one of the faults located in Northern California.

1.7.2 Discussion
a) Directly
or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to California Geological Survey Special Publication 42.)
There are
no known earthquake faults traveling through the project site. The nearest known earthquake fault is located approximately 23,000 feet from the edge of the project site.

Therefore, the project potential substantial adverse effects from the rupture of a known earthquake fault would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

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

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
ii) Strong
seismic ground shaking?
As with many sites in the San Francisco Bay Area, the project site has the potential for moderate to severe seismic ground shaking. The proposed building would be designed to withstand this level of seismic shaking and would be reviewed and inspected by the City’s Building Division for conformance with the applicable building codes.

A geotechnical
investigation is required for all development projects and would identify measures to address site-specific conditions, including seismic ground shaking, as detailed in standard development requirement FMC 18.218.050(e): Geology and Soil.

SDR FMC 18.218.050(e):

Geology and Soils. New development projects with the potential to expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death due to seismic activity and potential seismic‐related ground shaking including liquefaction, if so determined by a site ‐specific geotechnical study prepared to the satisfaction of the city engineer or his/her designee, shall implement the following measures prior to or during project construction, as applicable.
(A) The project geotechnical consultant shall review all geotechnical aspects of the project building and grading plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements, and design parameters for foundations, and retaining walls). The consultant shall verify that their recommendations, including those regarding the need for further evaluation for potential liquefaction and the presence and lateral extent of any undocumented fill as well as laboratory testing for corrosive soil, have been properly conducted and any necessary design measures are incorporated into the construction plans. The results of the plan review shall be City of Fremont 49
summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the city engineer prior to issuance of building permits for the project.
(B) The project geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as‐built conditions of the project shall be summarized by the project geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the city building official/city engineer for review prior to final (as‐built) project approval.

Therefore, the
potential for substantial adverse effects would be less than significant and, as such, no mitigation would be required.

There is nothing peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding strong seismic ground shaking. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic and there is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR.
iii) Seismic-related
ground failure, including liquefaction?
The proposed project is located in an earthquake induced liquefaction zone according to the City of Fremont’s maps. The proposed project would be subject to the California Building Code and would be required to submit a geotechnical report through the building permit process. A geotechnical investigation is required for all development projects and would identify measures to address site-specific conditions, including seismic-related ground failure, as detailed in standard development requirement FMC 18.218.050(e): Geology and Soil included under item a)iii) above.

The City
peer reviews all geotechnical reports submitted and the City’s Engineering division reviews all grading plans. A building permit will not be issued until the project foundation conforms to the recommendations in the soils report. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact related to seismic-related ground failure.

There is
nothing peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic and there is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR iv) Landslides?
The project
site is not located in an area prone to landslides according to the City of Fremont’s maps. The site is nearly flat and not near any slopes or hillsides. Therefore, the potential for landslides is less than significant and no mitigation is required.

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

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
b) Result
in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Construction of the project would involve grading of the site. Grading has the potential to cause erosion and loss of topsoil. An erosion control plan would be required with plans submitted for grading and/or building permits to ensure that the project would not result in substantial soil erosion during grading and construction activities. Because disturbance to the site would be greater than one acre, it would require City of Fremont 50
coverage under the Statewide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Activities Stormwater Permit.

To obtain coverage under the General Permit, submission of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be required, which outlines Best Management Practices (BMPs) required to reduce the potential construction impacts related to erosion and topsoil loss to less than significant. BMPs to minimize erosion and topsoil would include, but would not be limited to, physical barriers to prevent erosion and sedimentation, construction of sedimentation basins, limitations on work periods during storm events, use of infiltration swales, protection of stockpiled materials, and a variety of other measures that would substantially reduce or prevent erosion from occurring during construction. The C3 Technical Guidance Manual, provided through the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program, of which the City of Fremont is a member (Clean Water Program, 2015) provides further details of specific BMPs, including measures for site design, source control, stormwater treatment, and hydromodification. With adherence to the state, county and local requirements described above, impacts to life or property associated with soil erosion would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

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

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
c) Be
located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
The project is located in a liquefaction zone. The proposed project would be subject to the California Building Code and would be required to submit a geotechnical report through the building permit process.

A geotechnical investigation is required for all development projects and would identify measures to address site-specific conditions, including soil instability or landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse, as detailed in standard development requirement FMC 18.218.050(e): Geology and Soil included under item a)iii) above. The City peer reviews all geotechnical reports submitted and the City’s Engineering division reviews all grading plans. A building permit will not be issued until the project foundation conforms to the recommendations in the soils report. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact related to soil instability or landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.

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

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
d) Be
located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as updated), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? The proposed project would be subject to the California Building Code and would be required to submit a geotechnical report through the building permit process. A geotechnical investigation is required for all development projects and would identify measures to address site-specific conditions, including expansive soil, as detailed in standard development requirement FMC 18.218.050(e): Geology and Soil included under item a)iii) above. The City peer reviews all geotechnical reports submitted and the City’s Engineering division reviews all grading plans. A building permit will not be issued until the project foundation conforms to the recommendations in the soils report. Therefore, the project would have a less City of Fremont 51
than significant impact related to soil instability or landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.

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

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
e) Have
soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
The project would be served by the local sanitary sewer system operated by Union Sanitary District. No on-site septic system would be required nor is one proposed for this project. Therefore, there would be no impact and no mitigation would be required. There is nothing peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding soils capable of supporting septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.

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

Potential Impact: No Impact
Mitigation: None required
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
The project site is generally flat and already fully developed; there are no unique geologic features at the site. There are no known paleontological resources in the immediate vicinity. According to the LSA Cultural Resources Study, the project site is underlain by Holocene-age alluvial deposits, which are generally considered too young to contain significant fossils.5 There are no recorded vertebrate or invertebrate fossils that have been found within Holocene-age soils in Alameda County.

While there
are no known paleontological 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-3) details requirements to address the potential for accidental discovery, including for paleontological resources. There would be no significant impact to paleontological resources or unique geologic features and no mitigation is required.

There is nothing
peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding paleontological resources or unique geologic features. 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
5 Helley and Graymer, 1997, Quaternary Geology of Alameda County and Surrounding Areas, California.

City of Fremont 52

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

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

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

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

City of Fremont 53

1.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
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) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?
SU  ☐ - LTS
b) Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for reducing
emissions of greenhouse gas?
LTS  ☐ - LTS

1.8.1 Environmental Setting
Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are present in the atmosphere naturally, are released by natural sources, or are formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. The gases that are widely seen as the principal contributors to human-induced global climate change are:
 Carbon dioxide (CO2);
 Methane (CH4);
 Nitrous oxide (N2O);
 Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs);
 Perfluorocarbons (PFCs); and
 Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).

GHG emissions associated with the project would occur over the short-term from construction activities, consisting primarily of emissions from equipment exhaust. There would also be long-term GHG emissions associated with project-related area sources, energy consumption, water conveyance and treatment, and waste generation.

Regulatory Framework:

Federal Regulations
While there currently are
no adopted federal regulations for the control or reduction of GHG emissions, the USEPA commenced several actions in 2009 to implement a regulatory approach to global climate change, including the 2009 USEPA final rule for mandatory reporting of GHGs from large GHG emission sources in the United States. Additionally, the USEPA Administrator signed an endangerment finding action in 2009 under the CAA, finding that seven GHGs (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, NF3, PFCs, and SF6) constitute a threat to public health and welfare, and that the combined emissions from motor vehicles cause and contribute to global climate change, leading to national GHG emission standards.

State Regulations
The CARB
is the lead agency for implementing climate change regulations in the State. Since its formation, the CARB has worked with the public, the business sector, and local governments to find solutions to California’s air pollution problems.

Regional Regulations
The BAAQMD is the regional government agency that regulates sources of air pollution within the nine Bay Area counties.

City of Fremont 54
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. The BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines identify applicable GHG significance thresholds. The BAAQMD recommends these thresholds of significance for use in determining whether a proposed project will have a significant impact related to climate change. These thresholds evaluate a project based on its effect on California’s efforts to meet the State’s long-term climate goals. Applying this approach, the BAAQMD identifies and provides supporting documentation outlining the requirements that new land use development projects must comply with to achieve California’s long-term climate goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. Based on this research, the BAAQMD has determined that new land use development projects need to incorporate design elements to contribute the “fair share” towards implementation of the goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. If a project is designed and built to incorporate the identified design elements, then it will contribute its portion of what is necessary to achieve California’s long-term climate goals—its “fair share”—and an agency reviewing the project under CEQA can conclude that the project will not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change. According to BAAQMD thresholds, consistency with a local qualifying GHG reduction plan can instead be used to determine that a project would have a less than significant impact.

Local Regulations
The City
passed its first Climate Action Plan (CAP) in 2012 with the goal of reducing municipal and community-wide GHG emissions 25 percent by 2020 from a 2005 baseline level. Some implementation successes include improving bike and pedestrian infrastructure, upgrading City streetlights with high- efficiency light emitting diode (LED) lighting, requiring all businesses to recycle, and establishing mandatory solar requirements for new residential construction.

In 2023,
the City adopted Climate Ready Fremont, an update to the City’s Climate Action Plan, to address major sources of GHG emissions to meet the goals of reducing GHG emissions by 55 percent below the 2005 baseline and becoming carbon neutral by 2045, meeting and exceeding SB 32 targets. Climate Ready Fremont includes eight focus areas, each of which includes has strategies, measures, and actions designed to reduce GHG emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change: Buildings and Energy (shortened to “BU”), Infrastructure and Equipment (IN), Land Use and Mobility (LU), Materials and Waste (MW), Natural and Urban Landscapes (NL), Adaptation and Resiliency (AR), Green and Circular Economy (GE), and Public Participation and Engagement (PE).

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

1.8.2 Discussion
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
As discussed above, a project would have a less than significant impact related to GHG emissions if it would include the project design elements related to natural gas, energy, VMT, and electric vehicles required by the BAAQMD or if it would be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b). As discussed above, the City’s CAP, Climate Ready Fremont, meets the requirements for a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy and is designed to streamline environmental review of future development projects in the City, consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b). Therefore, the proposed project is evaluated for consistency with applicable GHG reduction measures in Climate Ready Fremont as demonstrated in Table F of the LSA Air Quality, Energy, Greenhous Gas Emissions Memo dated February 7 th, 2024. Table F demonstrates the proposed project would be consistent with applicable strategies from the 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.

City of Fremont 55
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 GHG emissions. The proposed project would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic and there is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR.

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
b) Conflict
with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
As discussed above, the proposed project is consistent with the City’s CAP, Climate Ready Fremont.

Absent any other local or regional Climate Action Plan, the proposed project was analyzed for consistency with the goals of the 2022 Scoping Plan, EO B-30-15, SB 32, and AB 197.

EO B-30-15 added the immediate target of reducing GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. CARB released a second update to the Scoping Plan, the 2017 Scoping Plan, to reflect the 2030 target set by EO B-30-15 and codified by SB 32. SB 32 affirms the importance of addressing climate change by codifying into statute the GHG emissions reductions target of at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 contained in EO B-30-15. SB 32 builds on AB 32 and keeps California on the path toward achieving the State’s 2050 objective of reducing emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. The companion bill to SB 32, AB 197, provides additional direction to the CARB related to the adoption of strategies to reduce GHG emissions. Additional direction in AB 197 intended to provide easier public access to air emissions data that are collected by CARB was posted in December 2016.

In addition, the 2022 Scoping Plan assesses progress toward the statutory 2030 target, while laying out a path to achieving carbon neutrality no later than 2045. The 2022 Scoping Plan focuses on outcomes needed to achieve carbon neutrality by assessing paths for clean technology, energy deployment, natural and working lands, and others, and is designed to meet the State’s long-term climate objectives and support a range of economic, environmental, energy security, environmental justice, and public health priorities.

The 2022 Scoping Plan focuses on building clean energy production and distribution infrastructure for a carbon-neutral future, including transitioning existing energy production and transmission infrastructure to produce zero-carbon electricity and hydrogen, and utilizing biogas resulting from wildfire management or landfill and dairy operations, among other substitutes. The 2022 Scoping Plan states that in almost all sectors, electrification will play an important role. The 2022 Scoping Plan evaluates clean energy and technology options and the transition away from fossil fuels, including adding four times the solar and wind capacity by 2045 and about 1,700 times the amount of current hydrogen supply. As discussed in the 2022 Scoping Plan, EO N-79-20 requires that all new passenger vehicles sold in California will be zero-emission by 2035, and all other fleets will have transitioned to zero-emission as fully possible by 2045, which will reduce the percentage of fossil fuel combustion vehicles.

Energy efficient measures are intended to maximize energy efficiency building and appliance standards, pursue additional efficiency efforts including new technologies and new policy and implementation mechanisms, and pursue comparable investment in energy efficiency from all retail providers of electricity in California. In addition, these measures are designed to expand the use of green building practices to reduce the carbon footprint of California’s new and existing inventory of buildings. The proposed project would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 standards of the CCR, established by the CEC, regarding energy conservation and green building standards. In addition, as mentioned above, the proposed project would be all-electric, and no natural gas demand is anticipated during construction or operation of the proposed project. The elimination of natural gas in new development would help projects implement their “fair share” of achieving long-term 2045 carbon neutrality consistent State goals. As such, if a project does not utilize natural gas, a lead agency can conclude that it would be consistent with achieving the 2045 neutrality goal and will not have a cumulative considerable impact on climate change.23 Therefore, the proposed City of Fremont 56
project would comply with applicable energy measures.

Water conservation and efficiency measures are intended to continue efficiency programs and use cleaner energy sources to move and treat water. Increasing the efficiency of water transport and reducing water use would reduce GHG emissions. As noted above, the project would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 standards of the CCR, which includes a variety of different measures, including reduction of wastewater and water use. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with the California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any of the water conservation and efficiency measures.

The goal of transportation and motor vehicle measures is to develop regional GHG emissions reduction targets for passenger vehicles. Specific regional emission targets for transportation emissions would not directly apply to the proposed project. The second phase of Pavley standards will reduce GHG emissions from new cars by 34 percent from 2016 levels by 2025. Vehicles traveling to the project site would comply with the Pavley II (LEV III) Advanced Clean Cars Program. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the identified transportation and motor vehicle measures.

Therefore, the proposed project would comply with existing State regulations adopted to achieve the overall GHG emissions reduction goals identified in EO B-30-15, SB 32, AB 197, and AB 1279, and would be consistent with applicable plans and programs designed to reduce GHG emissions.

Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG emissions.

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 GHG reduction 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: None.

Mitigation: None required.

References

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

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

3. City of Fremont Climate Action Plan Update 2023. Available online at https://www.fremont.gov/about/sustainability/climate-action-plan-update.

4. LSA Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Memo February 7, 2024, prepared for the City of Fremont by LSA Associates.

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

City of Fremont 57

1.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
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) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
LTS  ☐ - LTS
b) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and/or
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
LTS  ☐ - LTS
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
LTS  ☐ - LTS
d) Be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would
it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
LTS  ☐ SDR FMC

18.218.050(c):

Construction
Management Plan
LTS with
SDR
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise for people
residing or working in the project area?
No Impact  ☐ - No Impact
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
LTS  ☐ - LTS
g) Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving
wildland fires?
LTS  ☐ - LTS

1.9.1 Environmental Setting
The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared by Cornerstone Earth Group, in March of 2023 presented the environmental setting of the site as it relates to hazards and hazardous materials.

The site historically was used for agricultural purposes and also occupied by what appear to have been two residences and outbuildings (e.g. barns and sheds). The existing commercial building was City of Fremont 58
constructed in the mid-1980s and occupied by a series of manufacturing and research and development businesses.

1.9.2 Discussion
The analysis in this section is supported by a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared by Cornerstone Earth Group, in March of 2023.
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Project construction would involve the transport, use, and disposal of typical construction-related hazardous materials such as gasoline, diesel fuel, oils and lubricants, paints and solvents, and other substances. Use of such fluids would be required to conform to Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, US Department of Transportation, State of California, and local laws and ordinances related to their routine handling. The use of such chemicals would not be particular to the project or represent a significant risk of site contamination.

Operationally, the
proposed project would be anticipated to utilize amounts consistent with our zoning ordinance of hazardous materials. The City of Fremont has a hazardous material uses ordinance FMC

18.19.220 that regulates the use of hazardous materials. Uses also would be subject to all applicable building and fire codes. As such the use of such chemicals would not be particular to the project or represent a significant risk of site contamination.

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
b) Create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and/or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
A Phase I ESA was prepared in 2023 for the project. The ESA was performed to identify recognized environmental conditions (RECs) associated with the project site such as past, current, or material threats of the release of hazardous materials or petroleum hydrocarbons to the buildings, soil, and groundwater at the site. The past agricultural use is associated with RECs related to potential for residual pesticides in soils, particularly near barns and sheds where the chemicals were mixed; and the potential for contamination with lead-based paint in soils near where old structures were located.

The City’s
SDR FMC 18.218.050(c): Construction Management Plan requires projects to submit a construction management plan that outlines how the project would minimize potential construction impacts, including the potential for disturbance of hazardous materials.

SDR FMC

18.218.050(c):

Construction Management Plan. Prior to the issuance of the first construction-related permit for a new development project, the project applicant and his/her general contractor shall submit a construction management plan (CMP) for review and approval by the planning and building divisions and other relevant city departments, such as the fire department and the public works department, as directed.

The CMP shall contain measures to minimize potential construction impacts including measures to comply with all construction-related conditions of approval (and mitigation measures if applicable) such as dust control, construction emissions, hazardous materials, construction days/hours, construction traffic control, waste reduction and recycling, erosion and sedimentation control, storm water pollution prevention, noise control, complaint management, and cultural and tribal cultural City of Fremont 59
resource management as applicable. The CMP shall provide project-specific information including descriptive procedures, approval documentation, and drawings (such as a site logistics plan, fire safety plan, construction phasing plan, proposed truck routes, traffic control plan, complaint management plan, construction worker parking plan, and litter/debris clean-up plan) that specify how potential construction impacts will be minimized and how each construction-related requirement will be satisfied throughout construction of the project.

The following
Condition of Approval specifies how this SDR would be implemented with respect to the identified potential site contaminants:

Condition of Approval – Soil Testing and Removal or Remediation if Necessary: Prior to earth disturbance at the site, soils will be tested for the presence of pesticides and lead-based paint consistent with recommendations of the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment and removed or remediated as determined appropriate.

The project
would implement SDR FMC 18.218.050(c): Construction Management Plan including addressing any contaminants found at the site and the project would have a less than significant impact related to exposure of sensitive receptors.

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

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
b) Emit
hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? The project site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The nearest existing or proposed schools are located approximately 3,600 feet northeast (Forest Park Elementary) and 4000 feet southwest (Challenger School) of the site.

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 hazardous materials near 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.

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
c) Be
located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code §65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
The Phase I ESA prepared for the project details that the project site is not a hazardous materials site as listed on the “Cortese List” pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to public or environmental hazards pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.

There is nothing
peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding hazardous materials sites. The proposed project City of Fremont 60
would result in no new significant effects, on-site, off-site or cumulative, for this topic and there is no new information indicating a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan Update EIR.

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
There are
no airports in the vicinity of the project site, therefore the proposed project would not have the potential to result in an impact related to airport hazards.

Potential Impact: No impact
Mitigation: None required
e) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The proposed project would not alter or otherwise detrimentally impact any streets in the project vicinity.

The existing roadway widths of Fremont Boulevard and Mowry Avenue, which border the site to the east and west, respectively, would remain unchanged by implementation of the project. Emergency vehicle access easements (EVAEs) deemed adequate by the Fremont Fire Department would overlay drive aisles. As a result, the project would provide adequate emergency access to on-site improvements, maintain emergency access to off-site improvements in the vicinity of the proposed building, and not conflict with any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

There is nothing
peculiar to the proposed project or its site that would result in a conclusion different than that found in the General Plan Update EIR regarding emergency response or 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: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
f) Expose
people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
The project site is located on nearly flat land within an urbanized area of the City that is not subject to wildfires or wildfire risks. See Section 1.20 Wildfire for additional information. As such, the project would not result in significant impacts related to exposure of people or structures to wildland fires.

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

Potential Impact: Less than significant
Mitigation: None required
References

1. City of Fremont, 2014. City of Fremont Standard Details for Improvements in Public Right of Way. Available online: https://fremont.gov/235/Standard-Details.

2. City of Fremont, 2007. Local Response Area (LRA) Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in the City of Fremont (FMC 7-13102). City Ordinance 33-2007.

City of Fremont 61

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

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

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

6. Cornerstone Earth Group. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment . March 24, 2023. Provided for the City of Fremont.

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

City of Fremont 62

1.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
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): Violate any water quality standards
or waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface
or groundwater quality?
LTS  ☐ LTS
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
LTS  ☐ LTS
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through
the addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:

LTS  ☐ LTS
i) Result in substantial on- or offsite
erosion or siltation;
ii) Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or
offsite
iii) Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? LTS with MM
Hydo-1
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due to
project inundation?
LTS  ☐ - No Impact
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
LTS  ☐ - No Impact

1.10.1 Environmental Setting
City of Fremont 63
The project site is currently developed for commercial activity and is flat with impervious and pervious surfaces throughout. Stormwater currently drains controlled to existing stormwater drains on site that connects to the current stormwater drain systems. Storm water in Fremont ends up in inlets into a concrete flood control channel controlled by the Alameda County Flood Control district.

The project
area overlies the Niles Cone groundwater subbasin. Niles Cone has a series of relatively flat lying aquifers separated by extensive clay aquitards (Alameda County Water District, 2017). About sixteen wells are used to extract water from the groundwater basin. Together, these wells can produce up to 47.5 million gallons of water per day. This water is blended with San Francisco Regional Water System supplies before being delivered to customers (Alameda County Water District, 2023).

The project site is located within Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel No. 06001C0440G. According to this FIRM, the project site is located within an Unshaded Zone X, which is an area of minimal flood hazard higher than the elevation of the 0.2-percent- annual-chance flood. The project site is not within a designated FEMA 100-year floodplain. The project is not located near any large, enclosed bodies of water.

Regulatory Setting:

The State
Water Resource Control Board’s (SWRCD) statewide stormwater general permit for construction activity (Order 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.

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
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.

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.

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 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.

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. 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.

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.

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
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 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
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

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

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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/.

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.

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
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.

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://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.

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.

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.

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 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/.

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.

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.

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
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.

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.

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).

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
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 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 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
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.

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.

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
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.