Planning Commission
February 13, 2025
Proposal: ARDENWOOD AT PASEO APPEAL — 6200 Paseo Padre Parkway - PLN2025-00087 - To consider a third -party Appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s approval of a Discretionary Design Review Permit and Floor Area Ratio increase (under PLN2022 - 00466) to allow a proposed five -building light -industrial/R&D project consisting of approximately 407,250 square feet of new development, plus renovation of an existing 43,172 -square-foot light-industrial/R&D building, on the site bounded by Paseo Padre Parkway, Ardenwood B oulevard, and Commerce Drive in the North Fremont Community Plan Area; and to consider an exemption from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, as the project is consistent with the Ge neral Plan, for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
(SCH#2010082060) was previously prepared and certified, and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, as none of the circumstances requiring preparation of a subsequent or
supplemental EIR have occ urred. Each of the foregoing
provides a separate and independent basis for CEQA
compliance.
Recommendation: Deny the Appeal and approve the project based on findings and subject to conditions..
Location: 6100 Paseo Padre Parkway, APN 543-439-125 6200 Paseo Padre Parkway, APN 543-439-148
Unaddressed parcel, APN 543-439-35
Unaddressed parcel, APN 543-439-127
People: Kelilah Federman, East Bay Residents for Responsible Development, Applicant
Gavin Christensen, Owner
Marc Cleveland, Staff Planner (510) 494-4543;
[email protected]
General Plan: Tech Industrial
Zoning: P-81-15 (Ardenwood Planned District)
Planning Commission Report (ID # 5363) Meeting of February 13, 2025 ARDENWOOD @ PASEO APPEAL PLN2025-00087 Page 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Planning Commission is being asked to consider a third -party Appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s action of October 15, 2024, to approve a Discretionary Design Review permit and a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) increase in conjunction with development of five new industrial buildings and the renovation of an existing industrial build ing on 24.2 acres of land in P -81-15, the Ardenwood Planned District. The project’s southern lot would have a
0.51 FAR that exceeds the maximum 0.35 FAR standard applicable to Tech Industrial - designated lots occupied by light-industrial/R&D uses.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission find that the Appeal, which was filed by Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo during the 10 -day appeal period that followed the Zoning Administrator’s action and challenges the project approval on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) grounds, lacks merit and that the evidence in the record supports the use of a streamlining exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the Appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision to approve the project, as shown in Exhibit “A,” pursuant to the findings and conditions contained in Exhibit “B.”
BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS ACTIONS:
Site Development/Improvements
The site was historically used for agricultural purposes unti l 1985, when the 43,172-square- foot building at 6200 Paseo Padre Parkway was constructed. Initially used for the design and production of communications systems, the building has been used as a solar panel R&D facility from 2010 to present day. Since 2011, the 6100 Paseo Padre Parkway parcel and the unaddressed vacant parcel at the southern end of the site have been used as a commercial solar farm operated by the 6200 Paseo Padre Parkway tenant (Nextracker). All other project site land sits vacant.
Planned District P -81-15 was approved by the City Council in December 1981 for the development of the project originally referred to as Ardenwood Forest – New Town. As originally planned, Ardenwood Forest – New Town was to include facilities for living, working, shopping, and recreation. The plan called for approximately 3,800 dwelling units, 280 acres of high -technology industrial business park, 37 acres of commercial uses, and 105 acres for schools, parks, and open spaces. Much of the plan has been implemented ; the project would infill a significant portion of the planned yet unbuilt industrial area.
In February 2006, the City Council amended P -81-15 to allow an increase in the maximum building height to 75 feet (from 45 feet) on lands bounded by Paseo Padre P arkway, Ardenwood Boulevard, and State Route 84, an area which includes the project site. The City Council further amended the planned district in September 2016 by tying land use allowances within the planned district’s Tech Industrial -designated areas to the land use allowances of the I -T (Tech Industrial) zoning district, as set forth in Fremont Municipal Code Table 18.50.090.
Planning Commission Report (ID # 5363) Meeting of February 13, 2025 ARDENWOOD @ PASEO APPEAL PLN2025-00087 Page 3
Zoning Administrator Hearing and Appeal Filing
On October 15, 2024, the Ardenwood at Paseo project (PLN2022 -00466) was presented at a noticed Zoning Administrator public hearing. Following a presentation from staff that included a project approval recommendation, two members of the public spoke on the item.
Both speakers were opposed to the project. One speaker raised concerns abo ut the project’s potential to negatively impact public safety, and Kelilah Federman from Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo representing East Bay Residents for Responsible Development (Appellant) challenged staff’s finding that the project is not subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. After considering testimony and the whole of the record, the Zoning Administrator approved the project, as conditioned.
On October 23, 2024, within the post -action 10 -day appeal peri od, the Appellant filed a qualifying third-party Appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s approval action. Within the letter that accompanied the Appeal application (Informational Item No. 2), the Appellant makes a number of assertions, including:
1. There is insufficient evidence to support approval of the project under a Community Plan (CEQA Guidelines Section 15183) exemption;
2. The specific project was not analyzed in the 2011 General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (EIR);
3. The project may result in new and significant air quality impacts on nearby sensitive receptors;
4. The project may result in new and significant construction and operational impacts, including those related to air quality, traffic, noise, and greenhouse gas emissions; and;
5. A subsequent or supplemental EIR is needed for the project.
PROCEDURE FOR TONIGHT’S HEARING:
The Planning Commission is being asked to consider the following:
1. A finding that the proposed project is not subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, as the project is consistent with the density established by the General Plan, for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH#2010082060) was previously prepared and certified, and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 151 64, as none of the circumstances requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR have occurred;
2. A finding that the proposed project’s Discretionary Design Review Permit and FAR increase is consistent with the City’s General Plan and that the pro posed site is physically suitable for the type, density, and intensity of the proposed use, would be compatible with development in the vicinity, and would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of persons or property in the vicinity a s enumerated within the staff report; and
Planning Commission Report (ID # 5363) Meeting of February 13, 2025 ARDENWOOD @ PASEO APPEAL PLN2025-00087 Page 4
3. A finding that the proposed project’s removal of 372 private protected trees enables a reasonable and conforming use of the property.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The project would complete development of the six -parcel site that’s located at the north end of the planned district’s industrially -focused area. As proposed, the southern portion of the site along Commerce Drive would be developed with two (2) two -story light-industrial buildings, both measuring 75,112 square feet, and one (1) three -story, 91,162-square-foot light-industrial building. The two -story buildings would stand 36’ -6” tall and the three -story building would stand 51’ -6” in height. The site’s Paseo Padre Parkway frontage would be developed with two (2) two-story light -industrial buildings. The building proposed at the southern end of the frontage would measure 75,112 square feet in size and the building proposed at the northern end of the frontage would measure 90,750 square feet. Both buildings would s tand 36’-6” in height. Situated between these two buildings is an existing one-story light -industrial building (6200 Paseo Padre Parkway) measuring 43,172 square feet that would be renovated but not expanded. Two existing light -industrial buildings located adjacent to the project along the Ardenwood Boulevard frontage (34175 and 34325 Ardenwood Boulevard) would remain unmodified.
A total of 1,403 vehicle parking spaces would be provided for the project. These parking spaces would be located in a contiguous surface parking lot that covers the non-building and landscape areas of the site. Of these spaces, 145 would be equipped with electric vehicle charging stations. The project would also include 79 short -term bicycle parking spaces and 61 long -term bicyc le parking spaces. Access to the site would come from two proposed curb-cuts along Commerce Drive, two existing curb -cuts along Paseo Padre Parkway, and one existing curb -cut along Ardenwood Boulevard. Existing parking areas and an Ardenwood Boulevard cu rb-cut supporting the two existing light -industrial buildings adjacent to the project site would remain unmodified by the project.
Project development would necessitate removal of 372 trees from the site. A total of 523 new trees would be planted within t he site’s perimeter landscape easement, within the proposed parking fields, and in open space amenity areas proposed adjacent to each project building.
The project would involve the combination of the site’s two southern lots (APNs 543 -439-35 and 543 -439-127) to create a single, 14.22 -acre lot. The combined southern lot would house the three new Commerce Drive buildings and the southern -most Paseo Padre Parkway building. The resulting FAR for the lot would be 0.51, which exceeds the adopted FAR maximum (0.35) for non -manufacturing or warehouse uses on Tech Industrial - designated sites. The project as a whole would have a FAR of 0.42. Pursuant to FMC Section
18.250.070, a condition of approval has been added requiring the recording of a deed restriction on the property to ensure that the use and intensity of the property remains limited to, and consistent with, project approval.
Off-site, a new six -foot-wide sidewalk would be installed along the site’s Commerce Drive frontage where no public walk current exists. The sidewalk would connect to existing sidewalks that line the site’s Paseo Padre Parkway and Ardenwood Boulevard frontages, Planning Commission Report (ID # 5363) Meeting of February 13, 2025 ARDENWOOD @ PASEO APPEAL PLN2025-00087 Page 5
completing the pedestrian loop around this “island” of parcels. Additionally, as conditioned and found warranted based on a traffic signal analysis for general plan compliance , the project would be required to install a traffic signal at the currently -unsignalized Paseo Padre Parkway / Commerce Drive intersection that abuts the site. This requirement falls outside of the environmental review as it is triggered by the LTA and not VMT analysis.
PROJECT ANALYSIS:
General Plan Conformance:
The project site is designated Tech Industrial in the General Plan’s Land Use Element. Sites with this designation are intended for research an d development, “clean and green” tech, and semi -conductor, computer hardware, software and related technological, administrative, sales, and engineering facilities. These areas play an essential role in the Silicon Valley economy and provide a high volume of business -to-business sales tax for Fremont.
The following General Plan Policies and Goals are applicable to the proposed project:
LAND USE POLICY 2 -1.11: Infill Emphasis – Focus new development on under - developed or “skipped over” sites that are alrea dy served by infrastructure and public streets.
LAND USE GOAL 2 -2.7: Building Height and Intensity – Apply Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and building height standards in commercial, industrial, and mixed use areas which limit the intensity of development; permit FARs and heights which exceed the adopted maximums for projects which provide extraordinary benefits to the City.
LAND USE POLICY 2 -5.1: Land Supply and Job Growth – Maintain an industrial land supply that is adequate and suitable for the continued growt h of the City’s core industries, including computer and communications manufacturing, biotechnology, green technology, logistics/distribution, and emerging technologies.
LAND USE POLICY 2-5.9: Optimizing the Use of Industrial Land – Encourage more efficient and productive use of underutilized industrial land. Industrial land should be recognized as a limited resource that must be carefully managed to accommodate projected job growth and market needs.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GOAL 6 -1: A Dynamic Local Economy – Create and sustain a dynamic local economy that attracts investment, increases the tax base, generates public revenues, creates employment, provides recreational, shopping and service opportunities for residents, and maintains a balance of jobs and housing.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GOAL 6-3: A Diverse Mix of Industrial and Technology Planning Commission Report (ID # 5363) Meeting of February 13, 2025 ARDENWOOD @ PASEO APPEAL PLN2025-00087 Page 6
Uses – Support and promote a diverse mix of industrial and technology uses to provide jobs and tax revenues for the community.
Analysis: The project constitutes an infill indus trial development on land that’s been intended for such use since 1981 and is well -served by abutting high -volume roadways and other infrastructure. Implementation of the project would strengthen the City’s industrial base, support a wide range of quality jobs, and generate a significant amount of revenue.
The project features a logical site layout, abundant perimeter landscaping, and clean, contemporary architecture with a high degree of transparency for increased compatibility with adjacent residential uses. The increased project FAR would enhance the viability of the project and contribute to greater project employment potential.
Zoning Regulations:
Per the aforementioned September 2016 amendment to P -81-15, future uses at the project site would be subj ect to the land use allowances of the I -T zoning district. The proposed project buildings and the existing building to be renovated have been designed to accommodate light -industrial/R&D uses, which are permitted uses within the I -T zoning district. Future occupants of project buildings will be evaluated individually for conformance with I-T zoning district land use regulations.
The planned district features specific development criteria that in some areas differs from citywide standards. The following tab les show project compliance with select applicable standards for the site.
Table 1—Development Standards (P-81-15 or General Plan)
Development
Standard
Requirement
Proposed Project
Complies?
Maximum FAR
0.35 (non-manufacturing or
warehouse uses)
0.30 (6100 Paseo Padre
Parkway);
0.33 (6200 Paseo Padre
Parkway; existing/no
change); and
0.51 (Southern lot)
No
(Southern
lot)
Minimum
Street Setback
25 feet 25+ feet (parking areas)
102+ feet (buildings)
Yes
Minimum
Interior Setback
20 feet 45+ feet Yes
Planning Commission Report (ID # 5363) Meeting of February 13, 2025 ARDENWOOD @ PASEO APPEAL PLN2025-00087 Page 7
Development
Standard
Requirement
Proposed Project
Complies?
Maximum
Building Height
75 feet 36’-6” – 51’-6” Yes
As shown in Table 1 above, the project would conform to applicable development standards for a new industrial project at the site with the exception of the southern lot’s FAR . Staff’s findings for the requested FAR increase can be found in the Findings for Approval section of this report.
Table 2—Automobile Parking Standards (P-81-15)
Project
Industrial
Gross Floor
Area
Industrial
Parking
Standard
Parking Spaces
Required
Parking Spaces
Proposed
Complies?
450,422 SF
One space /
450 SF
1,001
1,403 Yes
Table 3—Bicycle Parking Standards (FMC Table 18.183.135)
Bicycle
Parking Type Minimum
Parking Spaces
Required
Parking Spaces
Proposed
Complies?
Short-term
Four, plus 5%
required
automobile
parking
55 79 Yes
Long-term
One, plus 5%
required
automobile
parking
52 61 Yes
Planning Commission Report (ID # 5363) Meeting of February 13, 2025 ARDENWOOD @ PASEO APPEAL PLN2025-00087 Page 8
Per Tables 2 and 3 above, the project meets the minimum automobile and bicycle parking requirements. Automobile and short -term bicycle parking would be provided upon construction of project buildings and their related site improvements; long -term bicycle parking is proposed to be within the interior of each building and would be provided upon initial tenant improvement.
Architecture and Design:
The proposed project has been designed for consistency with the Section IV —Siting and Design Criteria of P -81-15. Additionally, the project conforms with the requirements of the Citywide Design Guidelines in that all Design Rules applicable for an industrial development have been met, including those related to site development, building design, and landscape design, and the project is in substantial conformance with the non -required Design Guidelines.
The project is laid out in a manner that creates a campus -like environment, as in tended by the planned district. A wide landscape buffer rings the site’s perimeter, and project buildings are situated such that they conceal much of the site’s interior parking areas from public view. The project’s concrete tilt -up buildings feature a con sistent, high -quality design aesthetic that incorporates high-transparency, aluminum-framed window systems and a mix of finishes that includes metal composite and corrugated panels, horizontal accent elements, and a complementary color palette to add visua l interest. Building rooftops have been designed with eight -foot-tall parapets that architecturally integrate into the building elevations. The loading and service areas of each building have been placed along their rear, concealing these areas and from pu blic view. Exterior lighting, both at each building and within the parking fields, has been designed to eliminate the potential for glare on neighboring properties.
Landscape:
The project features a comprehensive landscape design that adds to the visual q uality of the site. Project frontages feature a 20’ – 30’-foot-wide landscape easement that would be planted with a repeating pattern of spreading shade trees and row trees along the parking lot edges. Within the easement, a three -foot-tall earthen berm, p lanted with evergreen buffer shrubs, would further screen the site’s parking areas from public view. Enhanced tree and shrub plantings would be provided at each driveway entrance and at street intersections to elevate the project’s curb appeal. In total, 5 23 new tree plantings would be proposed.
Within the site’s interior, parking areas would feature landscaped medians with tree plantings to provide shading and visual relief. The front elevations of each building would feature strategically located accent and specimen trees. Outdoor employee amenity spaces are provided between each pair of project buildings. These spaces – three in total – feature accent paving, seat walls, movable furniture, and an overhead shade structure that shelters an outdoor kitchen and dining area.
The project’s conceptual landscape plan has been reviewed by a staff landscape architect and been found to be in conformance with applicable FMC provisions and to contribute to Planning Commission Report (ID # 5363) Meeting of February 13, 2025 ARDENWOOD @ PASEO APPEAL PLN2025-00087 Page 9
project aesthetics. As selected, all proposed project plant ings would be of species having low-to-medium water demands, furthering water conservation efforts.
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL:
Pursuant to FMC Section 18.235.060, in order to approve a Discretionary Design Review Permit, the Zoning Administrator must make the following findings:
(a) The proposed project is consistent with the general plan, any applicable community or specific plan, planning and zoning regulations, and any adopted design rules and guidelines.
Analysis: The proposed project is consistent with th e General Plan, P -81-15 standards, and the applicable Design Rules of the Citywide Design Guidelines . The project will advance the vision of the site’s planned district, which has tabbed the property to be developed as an industrial campus dating back to i ts 1981 adoption.
The project will transform an underutilized infill site with a development that’s consistent with the scale and design character sought for new industrial development within the North Fremont’s Tech Industrial-designated lands.
(b) When a pr oposed project is inconsistent with an adopted design rule, the purpose and intent of the design rule is met through alternative means; and Analysis: The proposed project is consistent with the applicable Design Rules contained within the Citywide Design G uidelines, is in substantial conformance with the same document’s Design Guidelines, and is compliant with the limited design language contained within the P -81-15 ordinance. No exceptions to adopted Design Rules are necessary for the project.
(c) The nonmul tifamily project’s architectural, site, and landscape design will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of adjacent development nor be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare; and Analysis: The proposed project’s design would n ot interfere with the use and enjoyment of adjacent development nor would it be detrimental to public health or safety because the project has been designed in a logical manner that comfortably fits within the site’s buildable envelope while providing sign ificantly increased building setbacks from all street frontages and interior property lines. The project features high -quality architecture that enhances the appearance of the site, and significant landscaping within the site frontages’ landscape easements and the introduction of a Commerce Drive sidewalk that will connect with the existing sidewalk network that wraps the site would create a safer, more pedestrian -friendly public realm. Furthermore, the proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of persons or property in the vicinity owing to its conformance with applicable Building and Fire code regulations.
Planning Commission Report (ID # 5363) Meeting of February 13, 2025 ARDENWOOD @ PASEO APPEAL PLN2025-00087 Page 10
(d) Where HARB review is required, the proposed project is consistent with the applicable standards and findings required in Chapters 18.135 and 18.175.
Analysis: HARB review is not required for this project as it is not within a designated historic district and there are no Register or Register-eligible resources on the site.
Pursuant to FMC Section 18.250.070, the following findings are required prior to approval of an application for a FAR increase:
(a) The increase in floor area ratio will not cause the project to exceed the capacity of streets and will not adversely affect the privacy of properties in the vicinity of the project;
Analysis: A Transportation Analysis prepared for the project found that all of the signalizedintersections studied in the vicinity of the project site would maintain current level of service goals and/or not increase current delay by more than 10 seconds with project implementation. As a result, project impacts on area roadways would not be considered to have an adverse effect and capacities of area streets would not be exceeded. As part of project implementation, a traffic signal would be installed at the Paseo Padre Parkway / Commerce Drive intersection, which is currently unsignalized, in order to improve current level of service and reduce delays for project inbound and outbound vehicular movements. Though the project site is adjacent t o existing residential uses located across Ardenwood Boulevard, privacy impacts on the residences would be nonsignificant owing to at least 200 feet of separation between those existing uses and the proposed project buildings.
(b) A deed restriction approved by the city attorney shall be recorded on the property to ensure that the use of the property remains limited to that presented to the approval authority; and
Analysis: As conditioned, project implementation will be subject to a restrictive covenant and notice of land use limitation for the subject floor area ratio increase. (c) The proposed project would provide extraordinary benefits to the City.
Analysis: The proposed increase in floor area ratio is associated with an industrial project that constitutes the first viable development at the project site in the planned district’s 43 -year history. At present time, demand for industrial space (including R&D and advanced manufacturing spaces, which project buildings are design to accommodate) in Fremont is st rong, with limited availability of space and low Planning Commission Report (ID # 5363) Meeting of February 13, 2025 ARDENWOOD @ PASEO APPEAL PLN2025-00087 Page 11
vacancy rates. The project figures to deliver high -paying jobs in professional and technical occupations and increase the City’s industrial standing in the region, which would be aided by the site’s key loca tion adjacent to State Route 84, which connects Fremont to the Bay Area’s primary cluster of innovation -oriented technology businesses. The project’s modern industrial buildings will better meet building configuration, access, and power needs of tenants co mpared to older building stock in the area. Additionally, the project will pay full -freight development impact fees and commercial linkage fees to offset the project’s potential impacts on City public facilities. The floor area ratio increase would result in a higher fee total than a project with a conforming floor area ratio.
Pursuant to FMC Section 18.215.070, the following finding is required in order to allow for the proposed removal of trees that are subject to protection under the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance:
(a) The proposed removal of protected trees would be consistent with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance.
Analysis: The removal of 372 private protected trees from the site is necessary to enable reasonable and conforming use of the pro perty as an industrial development in a campus -type setting. Redevelopment of the site with five new buildings with a combined ground floor footprint of 188,431 square feet, plus necessary parking, circulation, landscaping, storm water treatment, and other associated improvements requires their removal. The remainder of the site’s private protected trees would remain in place, and new trees, both on -site and within the adjacent right -of-way, are proposed in accordance with the City’s Landscape Development R equirements and Policies (LDRP). Of the removed trees, 209 will be mitigated. A tree mitigation fee will be collected for the 163 trees scheduled for removal that cannot be mitigated with no on-site tree plantings.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 151 62, the following findings are required for projects when an EIR has been certified for a project and no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental Planning Commission Report (ID # 5363) Meeting of February 13, 2025 ARDENWOOD @ PASEO APPEAL PLN2025-00087 Page 12
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonab le diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
Analysis: As documented in the CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist prepared for the project, none of the criteria list ed above has occurred. This checklist and other evidence in the record supports the use of the certified General Plan Update EIR for the project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, finding that the mitigation measures from the EIR are app lied to and adequate for the proposed project, which is within the scope of the EIR, and that no further CEQA documentation is required.
Environmental Review:
The proposed project is subject to no further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning, as the project is consistent with the General Plan for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH#2010082060) was previously prepared and certified. Please see Informational Item No. 1 – CEQA Determination for more information. Additionally, the project has been found to not trigger subsequent documentation under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 as no substantial changes are proposed in the project that would require revisions to the General Plan Update EIR, nor have substantial changes occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the proposed project would be undertaken require Planning Commission Report (ID # 5363) Meeting of February 13, 2025 ARDENWOOD @ PASEO APPEAL PLN2025-00087 Page 13
revisions to the General Plan Update EIR, nor has new information of substantial impor tance been identified that would indicate the project would have any new or more significant effects or require new or additional mitigation than what was included in the General Plan Update EIR. The programmatic mitigation measures from the General Plan U pdate EIR and/or the standard development requirements contained within FMC Chapter 18.218 adequately address the potential environmental effects of the project. The project is thus within the scope of the General Plan Update EIR and no further CEQA docume ntation is required. The CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist presents substantial evidence that the analyses conducted, and the conclusions reached in the 2011 General Plan Update EIR (SCH#2010082060) remain valid, and no supplemental environmental re view is required for the proposed project. The proposed project would not cause new significant impacts that were not previously identified in the EIR or result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts. No new mitigation measures would be necessary to reduce significant impacts. No changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances that would cause significant environmental impacts to which the proposed project would contribute considerably, and no new info rmation has been put forward that shows that the proposed project would cause new or substantially worsened significant environmental impacts. Therefore, no supplemental environmental review is required and an addendum to the 2011 General Plan Update EIR c ould be relied upon for CEQA clearance of the proposed project, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.
Following the Appeal filing, staff commissioned CEQA consultant Lamphier -Gregory to prepare a respons e letter (attached as Informational Enclosure 4) that addresses the specific claims made in the Appellant’s CEQA challenge letter. The response letter establishes that project impacts under CEQA were properly disclosed in the CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist, and that the City’s use of CEQA streamlining in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 and no additional CEQA analysis pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 were appropriate for the project Grounds of the Appeal:
The appellant has provided a list for the grounds of their appeal as shown in Informational Item No. 2 – Appeal Application Statement. The grounds of the Appeal and brief responses by the City are as follows. Please see the letter from Lamphier -Gregory Informational Item No. 4 – Consultant Appeal Response Letter, which contains the responses to the assertions raised in the Appeal.
Ground #1: The City Lacks Substantial Evidence to Support Approval of the Project Under a Community Plan Exemption or Addendum and the Pr oject has significant project specific impacts that are peculiar to the Project, were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR, were not know and could not have been known when the 2011 General Plan EIR was certified, and are more severe than previously analyz ed.
As described in the CEQA Consistency Checklist and the staff report, the Project is consistent with the development density and land use characteristics established pursuant to the 2011 Fremont General Plan and as analyzed in the General Plan EIR (“GP EIR”). The Project is consistent with the development densities, bulk and land use standards of the Tech Industrial designation of the General Plan and P -81-15 zoning with respect to site planning, massing, architecture, and other urban design characterist ics. The appeal asserts that specifics of the Project were not contemplated in the General Plan because the Project’s Planning Commission Report (ID # 5363) Meeting of February 13, 2025 ARDENWOOD @ PASEO APPEAL PLN2025-00087 Page 14
application was filed after it was adopted, but CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 does not contemplate or require such a scenario. Clearly, th e specifics of the Ardenwood at Paseo Project, or any other currently contemplated individual development project, was not known and could not have been known when the GP EIR was prepared in 2011. Ground #2 :
Significant air quality health risk impacts not disclosed per the appellant’s consultant’s analysis (Informational Item No. 3).
A project-specific Emissions Study was completed and presented in the CEQA Consistency Checklist (Informational Item No. 1). No additional mitigation was deemed necessary because of mandatory project compliance with the City’s standard development requirements. The City of Fremont’s standard development requirements were adopted to be universally applied to all projects. The standard development requirements are applied to all projects and are not considered unique mitigation measures to this project.
Ground #3: SWAPE (appellant consultant) conducted a quantified health risk analysis (“HRA”) of the Project’s toxic air contaminant (“TAC”) emissions, including DPM, and identified he alth risk impacts which are more severe than analyzed in the 2011 General Plan EIR and in the CEQA Checklist.
SWAPE’s documents reference “Screening Level” health risk calculations. As indicated in the emissions study conducted, screening level analysis is more conservative than the more complex and refined detail analysis that was done. Screening level analysis is used to determine whether a more refined analysis should be performed. SWAPE conducted a less detailed screening analysis which would not be app ropriate to be used to refute the results of the more complex and refined detailed analysis that was used in the project’s emission study.
Ground #4: Potential health risk impacts on the nearby day care were not contemplated in the General Plan EIR.
Day c ares are permitted throughout all residential zones in the City of Fremont (FMC
18.90.080) and can be allowed with Zoning Administrator approval in many other zones.
Since the proposed Project use is consistent with the General Plan and zoning, as is the d ay care in the adjacent residential neighborhood, the proximity of these two uses was implicitly contemplated by the General Plan and cannot reasonably be found to be peculiar to this Project or its location. The emissions study assessed sensitive receptors.
Ground #5 The project may result in new and significant construction and operational impacts, including those related to air quality, traffic, noise, and greenhouse gas emissions.
The CEQA Checklist (Informational Item No. 1) details compliance to each of these concerns supported by consultant studies. The project ’s construction is consistent with what the General Plan EIR envisioned for the site and does not constitute an unusual circumstance.
CITY FEES:
The proposed project is subject to development impact fees. Fees would be calculated and due at the time of building permit issuance unless a deferral agreement is approved and executed.
Planning Commission Report (ID # 5363) Meeting of February 13, 2025 ARDENWOOD @ PASEO APPEAL PLN2025-00087 Page 15
PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT:
Public hearing notification is applicable. Notices were mailed to owners and occupants of property within 300 feet of the site. The notices to owners and occupants were mailed on January 30, 2025 . A Public Hearing Notice was published by The Tri-City Voice on January 28, 2025.
ENCLOSURES:
Exhibit A – Project Plans
Exhibit B – Findings and Conditions of Approval
Informational Item No. 1 – CEQA Determination
Informational Item No. 2 – Appeal Application Statement Informational Item No. 3 – Appeal Study
Informational Item No. 4 – Consultant Appeal Response Letter Informational Item No. 5 – Public Correspondence
Informational Item No. 6 – Zoning Administrator Staff Report 10-15-24 RECOMMENDATION:
1. Hold public hearing;
2. Find that the project as shown in Exhibit “A” is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, as the project is consistent with the General Plan for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH#2010082060) was previously prepared and certified; and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, as none of the circumstances requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR have occurred. Each of the foregoing provides a separate and independent basis for CEQA compliance.
3. Find the requested Discretionary Design Review Permit and floor area ratio increase, as shown on Exhibit “A,” subject to find ings and conditions of approval in Exhibit “B,” is consistent with the City’s General Plan and that the proposed site is physically suitable for the type, density, and intensity of the proposed use, would be compatible with development in the vicinity, and would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of persons or property in the vicinity as enumerated within the staff report; and
4. Deny the third-party appeal (PLN2025-00087) and approve the Discretionary Design Review Permit and Floor A rea Ratio increase (PLN2022 -00466), as shown in Exhibit “A,” subject to findings and conditions contained in Exhibit “B.”
Planning Commission Report (ID # 5363) Meeting of February 13, 2025 ARDENWOOD @ PASEO APPEAL PLN2025-00087 Page 16
ENCLOSURES
• Exhibit A - Project Plans
• Exhibit B - Findings and Conditions of Approval
• Informational Item No. 1 - CEQA Determination
• Informational Item No. 2 – Appeal Application Statement • Informational Item No. 3 – Appeal Study
• Informational Item No. 4 – Consultant Appeal Response Letter • Informational Item No. 5 – Public Correspondence
• Informational Item No. 6 - Zoning Administrator Staff Report 10-15-24