Agenda packet, regular meeting — Fremont City Council, November 4, 2025 (part 2 of 2)

Proposal: WARM SPRINGS - LOPES ROAD APPEAL – 44960 Lopes Road - PLN2026-00023 - To consider a first -party (project proponent) Appeal of staff’s determination regarding the use of a
concession under State Density Bonus Law to lower an adopted minimum residential density below that required by the City’s General Plan, Warm Springs/South Fremont Community Plan, and corresponding Zoning Ordinance for a project proposed within a Transit -Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay District adjacent to the Warm Springs/South Fremont BART Station submitted under PLN2025-00253, and to consider a finding that no environmental review is required for the appeal action as, in isolation, it is not considered a "Project" under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378; and, on a separate and independent basis, without limitation, CEQA Guidelines Section 15270 (Projects Which Are Disapproved), as CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves; and/or CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (Review for Exemption), in that there is no possibility that action on the Appeal would have a significant effect on the environment.

Recommendation: Deny the Appeal (uphold staff's decision).

Subject Site: 44960 Warm Springs Boulevard in the South Fremont Planning Area.

APN 519-1310-45
Area: 292,723-square-foot / ±6. 56-net-acre lot / ±6.72-gross-acre lot
People: Mark Kerslake, Newport Equities LLC., Appellant (Project Proponent)
Lopes Road LLC., Property Owner
Kevin Lee, Staff Planner | (510) 494-4521 | [email protected] General Plan: Innovation Center
Zoning: Warm Springs Innovation District - Planning Area 5 (WSI-5)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Planning Commission is being asked to consider a first -party Appeal of staff’s determination provided via a formal comment letter to deny the proposed use of a concession under State Density Bonus Law (“DBL”) to lower the adopted minimum residential density standard of 50 units per net -acre applicable to the 6. 56-net-acre subject Informational Item 2 - Planning Commission Staff Report

LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL
City Council Hearing
November 4, 2025

5.C.c
Packet Pg. 131
Attachment: Informational Item 2 Planning Commission Staff Report (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5547) Meeting of September 25, 2025 WARM SPRINGS - LOPES ROAD APPEAL PLN2026-00023 Page 2
site. The requested density reduction would be necessary to facilitate the appellant’s proposed construction of approximately 127 attached townhome units where a minimum of 328 units would otherwise be required for the subject site. The Appeal is the subject of comments made by staff during the first review of formal entitlements for the proposed project (Informational Item “1”). The subject site is adjacent to the Warm Springs/South Fremont BART Station (“Station”) and is designated for development of high -density housing within the Transit -Oriented Development (“TOD”) Overlay District. The appellant asserts that staff’s denial of the proposed concession is in violation of DBL, which they contend allows for a significantly reduced project density of 19.4 dwelling units per net acre.

This Appeal does not address the project merits and only addresses threshold questions concerning: 1) whether the novel concession should be further evaluated or considered under DBL or rejected outright, and 2) whether CEQA review should proceed notwithstanding staff’s determination to not support the novel concession. Although it is atypical for an Appeal to be presented to the Planning Commission for a project that has not yet been deemed complete, Fremont Municipal Code (FMC) Section 18.300.020 provides that the decision of any City official, including Planning Division staff, may be appealed to the Planning Commission.

For the reasons contained in this report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1) find that this Appeal (as distinct from the project itself) is exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and 2) deny the Appeal (upholding staff’s determination), which would reject the appellant’s request to direct staff to conduct CEQA review for the proposed project and disallow their request to lower the minimum density requirement through use of a concession under DBL because it is contrary to state law and should be denied pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(d)(1)(C), the fundamental purpose, goals, and policies for TOD outlined in the City’s General Plan and Warm Springs/South Fremont Community Plan and does not comply with the standards of the Zoning Ordinance, as further described in this report.

SITE CONTEXT, BACKGROUND, AND PREVIOUS ACTIONS
Site Context: The subject site is a relatively flat and undeveloped 6.7 2-gross-acre site with several habitable structures and a barn of unknown historic significance or date of construction. The subject site is immediately adjacent to the City’s Warm Springs Plaza and West Side Pedestrian & Bicycle Access Bridge of the Warm Springs/South Fremont BART Station.

Background/Previous Actions: On April 17, 2025, a “Preliminary Application” under Senate Bill 330 (Housing Crisis Act of 2019; SB 330) was received and deemed complete by staff.

The Preliminary Application included an attached townhome development consisting of 123 dwelling units with 30 optional junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) for a then project density of approximately 18.3 dwelling units per acre. An SB 330 Preliminary Application allows a developer to provide a specific subset of information on a proposed housing development in advance of providing the full amount of information required for a full project application filing. Submittal of a complete Preliminary Application under SB 330 and payment of the required filing fee allows an applicant to "freeze" the applicable fees and development standards in effect at the time of Preliminary Application completeness and subject to future permit submittal timelines under state law.

Upon acknowledging receipt of the Preliminary Application submittal, staff informed the appellant that the project, as proposed, yields a project density considerably below the 50

5.C.c
Packet Pg. 132
Attachment: Informational Item 2 Planning Commission Staff Report (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5547) Meeting of September 25, 2025 WARM SPRINGS - LOPES ROAD APPEAL PLN2026-00023 Page 3
units per net acre density minimum required for the subject site, and that the proposed project density, which would be achieved through use of a density bonus concession under DBL would be contrary to state law.

On June 4, 2025, the appellant, represented by counsel, sent an email to Planning Division staff containing two documents: a project statement with the request of a concession to lower the subject site’s required minimum density and an analysis of DBL that included a cost reduction study related to the proposed concession. These documents are included as part of the Appeal letter (Informational Item “2”). Planning Division staff inquired if the documents would supplement a future application; however, the City received no response.

On July 7, 2025, a formal entitlement application for the proposed project was received by the City under PLN2025 -00253 that included minor changes from the project proposed in the prior Preliminary Application submittal. The entitlement application project consists of 127 dwelling units with 33 optional JADUs across several three -story buildings for a slightly increased project density of approximately 19.4 units/net acre.

On August 6, 2025, the proposed project was deemed incomplete by staff within the statutory 30-day review period. A Notice of Incomplete was sent to the applicant through email while a formal comment letter was provided as a separate upload to the applicant’s project. The formal comment letter and Notice of Incomplete are enclosed with this staff report as Informational Item “1” and “3,” respectively. Although not required, the City provides preliminary feedback on an “incomplete project” as a courtesy to assist applicants on potential issues that may arise when a “complete project” is submitted.

On August 22, 2025, the Appeal was filed to contest two comments made by staff as part of the City’s August 6 formal comment letter. The appellant requested that the Appeal be heard at the next available calendared Planning Commission hearing.

Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) – Technical Assistance Sought
After receiving the Appeal, staff promptly sought technical assistance regarding the matter from the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) through several email exchanges and one virtual meeting. At the time of writing this report, HCD has not provided any indication that staff’s decision to reject the proposed concession would be in violation of DBL or other state housing laws. Staff maintains the interpretation that DBL, as well as other State housing-related laws, are intended to maximize the production of housing. HCD generally agrees with and supports staff’s interpretation but are reticent to provide definitive formal guidance at this juncture, as the question ultimately is likely to be resolved by the State Legislature or through court interpretation. Based on recent offline conversations, HCD indicated that the agency has received at least five similar requests from other cities and has responded consistently with what was communicated with staff.

Due to these circumstances, staff recommends that the Planning Commission proceed with action on the appeal independent of any further guidance from HCD, as any response from HCD is unlikely to be definitive.

PROCEDURE FOR TONIGHT’S HEARING
The Planning Commission is being asked to consider the following:

1. A finding that action on the Appeal is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to, without limitation, each on a separate and independent basis, CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 (Project), as the action on the

5.C.c
Packet Pg. 133
Attachment: Informational Item 2 Planning Commission Staff Report (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5547) Meeting of September 25, 2025 WARM SPRINGS - LOPES ROAD APPEAL PLN2026-00023 Page 4
Appeal is not considered a “project”; CEQA Guidelines Section 15270 (Projects Which Are Disapproved), as CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves; and/or CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (Review for Exemption), in that there is no possibility that action on the Appeal would have a significant effect on the environment; and

2. A finding that the proposed concession to reduce the City -adopted minimum density for the project site is inconsistent with and contrary to State law and should be denied pursuant to, without limitation, Government Code Section 65915(d)(1)(C), the fundamental purpose, goals, and policies for transit -oriented development outlined in the City’s General Plan and Warm Springs/South Fremont Community Plan, and standards of the Zoning Ordinance, for the reasons contained in this staff report; and

3. A denial of the first-party Appeal (upholding staff’s decision).

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The appellant’s proposed project (filed under PLN2025 -00253) consists of a Discretionary Design Review Permit, Tentative Tract Map, and other entitlements to facilitate the construction of 127 townhome units within 21 three -story buildings across an approximately

6.56-net-acre lot located immediately west of the Station. While the project application has not been found complete, the project would appear to be eligible for consideration of one concession (or incentive) and an unlimited number of waivers under DBL because the appellant proposes to deed -restrict at least 10 percent of project units to low -income households and five percent to moderate-income households.

As part of the proposal, the appellant has requested a novel concession under DBL to reduce the required minimum density applicable to the project site from 50 units per net acre to approximately 19.4 units per net acre. City staff responded that the use of a concession to reduce a site’s minimum density requirement is contrary to DBL, the General Plan, the Warm Springs/South Fremont Community Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance and therefore would not be supported, which prompted the appellant’s Appeal filing.

APPEAL
On August 22, 2025, the appellant filed an Appeal after receiving staff’s formal comment letter dated August 6, 2025. In the Appeal letter (Informational Item “2”), the appellant’s counsel sets forth two issues outlined below.

1. Minimum Density Is A Development Standard. The appellant contends “that the minimum density standard is a ‘development standard,’ as defined and contemplated under DBL (Government Code Section 65915(k)), and that obtaining an incentive or concession to lower that density standard would result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, as required by DBL (Government Code Section 65915(d)(1).” Further, they note a minimum density standard is “inarguably a ‘development standard’ as broadly defined and contemplated under the DBL,” and that “DBL defines ‘incentives and concessions’ in relevant part as a ‘reduction in site development standards (Government Code Section 65915(k)…” The appellant believes that they have met the burden for requesting the proposed density reduction and have provided substantial evidence to show that request is consistent with DBL because it results in identifiable and actual cost reductions.

2. Environmental Review Not Performed Pursuant to CEQA For Project Denial

5.C.c
Packet Pg. 134
Attachment: Informational Item 2 Planning Commission Staff Report (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5547) Meeting of September 25, 2025 WARM SPRINGS - LOPES ROAD APPEAL PLN2026-00023 Page 5
Action. While the project application has not yet been deemed complete by staff and is not before the Planning Commission at this juncture, the appellant is requesting that the Planning Commission direct staff to perform environmental review for the proposed project, which would be required to be completed prior to any ultimate Planning Commission action to authorize the project to proceed.

APPEAL ANALYSIS
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appellant’s Appeal based on the following reasons:

Appeal Element: Minimum Density Is A Development Standard. The appellant argues that denial of the proposed concession to reduce the minimum required density is in direct violation of DBL.

Analysis:
a. The request is contrary to and inconsistent with DBL and other state and local housing goals, policies, and laws.

The proposed concession to lower the minimum density requirement through use of a concession under DBL is contrary to State law and should be denied pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(d)(1)(C). Staff views the use of a density bonus concession to lower an established minimum density standard as an infringement upon longstanding efforts at the state, regional, and local levels to add high -density housing where it is most appropriate and desired. Allowing a density reduction is contrary to State mandates that laws and regulations should be broadly construed insomuch as to maximize the development of housing within the state pursuant to Senate Bill 330 (Government Code Section 66300, approved as part of the Housing Crisis Act of 2019).

Legislation enabling density bonuses and other incentives are contained in California Government Code Section 65915. Government Code Section 65915(r) states that the chapter “shall be interpreted liberally in favor of producing the maximum number of total housing units .” In staff’s view, the appellant’s proposal would require the City to interpret DBL to allow production of fewer units than what is established by City - adopted minimum density standards, contrary to State law.

Furthermore, Government Code Section 65915(u) states:
(1) The Legislature finds and declares that the intent behind the Density Bonus Law is to allow public entities to reduce or even eliminate subsidies for a particular project by allowing a developer to include more total units in a project than would otherwise be allowed by the local zoning ordinance in exchange for affordable units. It further reaffirms that the intent is to cover at least some of the financing gap of affordable housing with regulatory incentives, rather than additional public subsidy.
(2) It is therefore the intent of the Legislature to make modifications to the Density Bonus Law by the act adding this subdivision to further incentivize the construction of very low, low -, and moderate-income housing units. It is further the intent of the Legislature in making these modifications to the Density Bonus Law to ensure that any additional benefits conferred upon a developer are balanced with the receipt of a public benefit in the form of adequate levels of affordable housing. T he Legislature further intends that these modifications will ensure that

5.C.c
Packet Pg. 135
Attachment: Informational Item 2 Planning Commission Staff Report (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5547) Meeting of September 25, 2025 WARM SPRINGS - LOPES ROAD APPEAL PLN2026-00023 Page 6
the Density Bonus Law creates incentives for the construction of more housing across all areas of the state.

Subsection (u)(1) intends to include more total units in a project than the standard allowance to cover the financing gap of affordable housing development instead of relying on public subsidies. Subsection (u)(2) also emphasizes that the intent of DBL ensures that additional benefits granted to developers through density bonuses and associated concessions in exchange for public benefit through adequate levels of affordable housing. Both subsections indicate that the law is intended to provide a greater, not lesser, number of units . Allowing a reduction in minimum density would fail to achieve this objective due to the resulting lost opportunities at the site for the development of higher density affordable housing for the foreseeable future. By extension, this reduction of density would consequently result in low -density development at sites where the opposite is desirable and planned for, hampering longstanding efforts to meet the housing production goals of the General Plan and State requirements.

HCD has developed numerous policies to address the State’s housing crisis and need for more housing opportunities at the local level, encapsulated through the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). New legislation continues to further encourage or require, when used in exchange for certain incentives, high -density housing next to transit (e.g. pending SB 79, Wiener). Past HCD advisories have consistently emphasized that policies that allow for higher densities and higher production of housing are encouraged. State laws specifically prohibit local -level changes that would reduce minimum densities or create additional barriers to housing production.

In accordance with State law, the City has worked diligently to increase housing production within the City boundaries to meet its RHNA numbers. The Housing Accountability Act instructs local agencies to apply the highest available density standard allowed to ensure that the greatest amount of housing production is achieved, particularly at higher densities next to transit. Requiring the City to allow minimum density reductions through DBL concessions would result in lost opportunities to develop higher density housing in the most appropriate locations for the foreseeable future. This could significantly impair the City’s ability to reach its Housing Element goals, widen the gap of providing housing to all income levels, and could negatively impact the City’s ability to require sufficient adequate sites to be available at all times throughout the RHNA planning period, i.e., complying with “no net loss” under Senate Bill 166 (Government Code Section 65863).

In addition to addressing the housing shortage crisis, the City’s effort to maximize housing density around the Station coincides with collaborative local, regional, and state endeavors.

The subject site falls within the Priority Development Area (PDA), as recognized by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), which is the coordinating agency for regional transportation efforts in the Bay Area’s nine counties. PDAs are key players of MTC’s Transit -Oriented Communities policy that specifically aims to increase the overall housing supply by increasing density for locations within one -half mile of BART and other transit stations. This goal is emphasized in Plan Bay Area 2050+, a long-range regional plan jointly developed and adopted by MTC and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) under Housing Strategy H3 to allow a greater mix of housing densities and types in Growth Geographies. Locally, the City’s BART stations would be identified by MTC as “Tier 2” stations, meaning growth around these stations should achieve a built density of at least 75 units per net acre or higher. There is no ceiling for density within the City’s Innovation District, and staff would be fully supportive of developers utilizing DBL to enable high - density residential development, not the opposite.

5.C.c
Packet Pg. 136
Attachment: Informational Item 2 Planning Commission Staff Report (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5547) Meeting of September 25, 2025 WARM SPRINGS - LOPES ROAD APPEAL PLN2026-00023 Page 7
b. The request is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan, Warm Springs/South Fremont Community Plan, and Zoning Ordinance.

The proposed concession to reduce the minimum density requirement would be inconsistent with the fundamental purpose, goals, and policies for TOD outlined in the City’s General Plan and Warm Springs/South Fremont Community Plan and development standard of the Zoning Ordinance.

The site has a General Plan designation of Innovation Center and is zoned WSI -5. The goal of the designation is to create an urban mix of uses surrounding the Station that maximizes development intensities and densities. Accordingly, consistent with the City’s General Plan, the Community Plan sets the minimum residential density within one -quarter mile of the Station at a minimum of 50 units per net acre. This minimum density is also captured in the City’s zoning ordinance under Fremont Municipal Code (FMC) Table 18.49.070.

Under State law, local governments are required to plan for addressing community housing needs through the adoption of a Housing Element as part of their General Plan. The 2023 - 2031 Housing Element was adopted by City Council on January 10, 2023, and certified by HCD on March 22, 2023. The City’s Housing Element reflects the City Council’s vision for meeting housing needs, and explicitly and expressly directs growth towards areas where transit options are readily available. This directive is further encapsulated by the following General Plan and Housing Element policies:

General Plan Land Use Policy 2-1.7: Becoming a More Transit-Oriented City - Transit-oriented development (TOD) —or the placement of higher density uses around transit facilities —should be recognized as the key strategy for accommodating Fremont’s growth in the next 20-25 years.

Housing Element Policy 3.04: Intensify Residential Development within Urban Neighborhoods – Supports Goal 3 of the Housing Element to promote production of new affordable and market-rate housing.

The Innovation Center district measures approximately 879 acres surrounding the Station.

Leveraging significant investments made by BART, City, developers, and major employment sectors in the area, the goal for this district is to create an urban mix of uses surrounding the Station with the highest development intensities and densities. This is implemented by minimum floor area ratio (FAR) and density development standards contained in FMC

18.49.070, which is at 50 units per net acre for sites within one-quarter mile of the Station.

The Warm Springs Innovation (WSI) district provides development standards consistent with the City’s General Plan and the Warm Springs / South Fremont Community Plan. The importance of density for the Innovation Center is implemented by the Zoning Ordinance, as stated in FMC 18.49.070(d)(1):
“The number of dwellings per unit of land, the density, is controlled so that housing can match the availability of public services and the support of commercial areas.

The standards also allow the housing density to be matched with the carrying capacity of the land. In addition, the density standards are used as one type of control of overall building bulk. Finally, minimum density standards ensure that the service capacity is not wasted and that the city’s housing goals are met.” Per FMC Table 18.49.070, as previously mentioned, new residential development must meet the minimum 50 units per net acre standard within one -quarter mile of the Station. The project set forth by the appellant proposes a significant density shortfall at approximately

5.C.c
Packet Pg. 137
Attachment: Informational Item 2 Planning Commission Staff Report (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5547) Meeting of September 25, 2025 WARM SPRINGS - LOPES ROAD APPEAL PLN2026-00023 Page 8

19.4 units/net acre, inconsistent with the General Plan, Warm Spring/South Fremont Community Plan, and Zoning Ordinance. Per State law, failure to follow a certified Housing Element risks loss of permitting authority, financial penalties, court receivership, and other consequences through enforcement by HCD. Numerous State legislation has authorized HCD to review any action or failure to act by a local government that HCD finds inconsistent with an adopted Housing Element. The City routinely processes DBL applications to maximize affordable housing and density.

Additionally, to require the City to approve housing below established minimum densities could put the City at a disadvantage and risk of not receiving grant funding if the implementation of adopted TOD plans is not realized, as development policies under MTC require intensified development near transit. DBL was adopted to allow projects to exceed the maximum allowable densities expressed in the General Plan, not used as a vehicle to reduce density to support considerably lower density housing next to transit , which would be consistent with MTC’s Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) policies.

Appeal Element: Environmental Review Not Performed Pursuant to CEQA For Project Denial Action. The appellant is requesting that the Planning Commission direct staff to perform environmental review for the proposed project that may subsequently be considered by the Planning Commission.

Analysis:

The appellant is requesting that the Planning Commission direct staff to complete environmental review for their proposed project, citing that the City would be in violation of the Permit Streamlining Act’s approval time limits. While staff has relayed that the City’s standing practice, as lead agency, is to not perform environmental review for projects for which it recommends denial, staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny this request for environmental review as it is premature at this stage to determine what environmental review will be required for the proposed project.

In addition, the project’s “incomplete” status as previously established justifies no environmental review to be conducted at this time. In accordance with the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code Section 65943), the City has 30 days after the application is deemed complete, when the lead agency must determine whether the project requires an environmental impact report (EIR), negative declaration, or can be exempt (Public Resources Code Section 21080.1, CEQA Guidelines Section 15060 -15063). If a negative declaration must be prepared, the lead agency must complete and adopt it within 180 days of the application being deemed complete (Government Code Section 65950, Public Resources Code Section 21151.5). If an EIR is required, the lead agency must certify the EIR within one year from when the application is deemed complete, unless the appellant agrees to an extension (Government Code Section 65950(a)(1)).

Finally, CEQA Guidelines Section 15270(a) states:
“CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.”
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15270, the lead agency is not required under the law to conduct environmental review of a project that is recommended for denial. CEQA applies only to projects that an agency proposes to carry out, support or approve, therefore, projects that are rejected or disapproved are exempt from CEQA. Case law has held that CEQA does not require a lead agency to commit resources to environmental review of a proposed private project that is slated for rejection. (see e.g., Las Lomas Land Co. v. City of

5.C.c
Packet Pg. 138
Attachment: Informational Item 2 Planning Commission Staff Report (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5547) Meeting of September 25, 2025 WARM SPRINGS - LOPES ROAD APPEAL PLN2026-00023 Page 9
Los Angeles, 177 Cal. App. 4th 837 (2009).

In closing, staff urges the Planning Commission to deny the Appeal . Granting the Appeal would result in a fundamental inconsistency with the General Plan’s mission statement and would conflict with its key goals and policies for creating higher density housing and jobs near transit. The City’s effort to maximize housing density around the Station aligns with local, regional, and state development policies and goals for urban development next to transit should be upheld.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Environmental review is not applicable as action on the Appeal is not considered a “project” per the definition contained in CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 (Project). In addition, each on a separate and independent basis without limitation, the action on the Appeal is exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15270 (Projects Which Are Disapproved), as CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves and/or CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (Review for Exemption), in that there is no possibility that action on the Appeal with have a significant effect on the environment.

PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT
Public hearing notification is applicable. A total of 808 notices were mailed to owners and occupants of property within 300 feet of the site. The notices to owners and occupants were mailed on September 12, 2025. A Public Hearing Notice was published by The Tri-City Voice on September 9, 2025.

The City received 13 emails from members of the public at the time of report publishing in response to public noticing for the Appeal . These emails are compiled and provided under Informational Item “4.”

RECOMMENDATION

1. Hold public hearing.

Based on the evidence in the record and presented at the public hearing:

2. Find that action on the Appeal is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to, without limitation, each on a separate and independent basis, CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 (Project), as the action on the Appeal is not considered a “project”; CEQA Guidelines Section 15270 (Projects Which Are Disapproved), as CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves; and/or CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (Review for Exemption), in that there is no possibility that action on the Appeal would have a significant effect on the environment; and

3. Find that the proposed concession to reduce the required minimum density is inconsistent with and contrary to State law and should be denied pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(d)(1)(C), the fundamental purpose, goals, and policies for the transit -oriented development outlined in the City’s General Plan and Warm Springs/South Fremont Community Plan, and standards of the Zoning Ordinance, for the reasons contained in this staff report; and

5.C.c
Packet Pg. 139
Attachment: Informational Item 2 Planning Commission Staff Report (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) Planning Commission Report (ID # 5547) Meeting of September 25, 2025 WARM SPRINGS - LOPES ROAD APPEAL PLN2026-00023 Page 10

4. Deny the first-party Appeal (upholding Staff’s decision).

ENCLOSURES
• Informational 1 - Development Review Comment Letter
• Informational 2 - Appeal Letter
• Informational 3 - Notice of Incomplete
• Informational 4 - Public Correspondence

5.C.c
Packet Pg. 140
Attachment: Informational Item 2 Planning Commission Staff Report (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) Minutes Planning Commission – September 25, 2025 PAGE 1

DRAFT MINUTES

FREMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2025
Timestamps from the video webcast are listed below each Public Hearing Item Number and are in hours format, as follows: (hours:minutes:seconds). Video webcasts of Planning Commission meetings can be found at: https://fremontca.viebit.com/#

PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Item 3. WARM SPRINGS – LOPES ROAD APPEAL – 44960 Lopes Road – PLN2026- (02:08:18) 00023 – To consider a first -party (project proponent) Appeal of staff’s determination regarding the use of a concession under State Density Bonus Law to lower an adopted minimum residential density below that required by the City’s General Plan, Warm Springs/South Fremont Community Plan, and corresponding Zoning Ordinance for a project proposed within a Transit -Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay District adjacent to the Warm Springs/South Fremont BART Station submitted under PLN2025-00253, and to consider a finding that no environmental review is required for the appeal action as, in isolation, it is not considered a "Project" under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378; and, on a separate and independent basis, without limitation, CEQA Guidelines Section 15270 (Projects Which Are Disapproved), as CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves; and/or CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (Review for Exemption), in that there is no possibility that action on the Appeal would have a significant effect on the environment.

Assistant Planning Manager Clifford Nguyen introduced the item.

Project Planner Kevin Lee gave a detailed presentation, and responded to questions from the Commission with assistance from Assistant Planning Manager Clifford Nguyen regarding the minimum density requirements for the area and the proximity of the proposed project to the Warm Springs/South Fremont BART station.

Chairperson Basrai opened the public hearing for this item.

Tim Ramm, representing Newport Equities, spoke to the timeline of the application for the proposed project and related correspondence with City staff. Mr. Ramm also responded to questions from the Commission regarding the lower density proposal, other development options, and the expected timeline for construction.

Sunas Bhatt commented on the current density of Lopes Road and its proximity to nearby schools.

Kiran Machhewar commented on limited parking on Lopes Road, size of the local public park, and noise due to the local BART station.

Informational Item 3 - Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY APPEAL
City Council Hearing
November 4, 2025

5.C.d
Packet Pg. 141
Attachment: Informational Item 3 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - September 25 2025 (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY

Minutes Planning Commission – September 25, 2025 PAGE 2 Kelly Abreu commented on the proximity of the Tesla east parking lot to the proposed project site and density for said area.

Vijayalaxmi Padmanabhan commented on traffic, parking, and privacy issues for the proposed project site.

Nikhil Komawar commented on traffic flow from Grimmer Boulevard to Lopes Road, the size and limited access to the public park near Lopes Road, and noise emanating from the Warm Springs/South Fremont BART station.

Tim Ramm briefly spoke in rebuttal.

Chairperson Basrai closed the public hearing for this item.

Following clarifying questions to staff and deliberation, Commissioner Yee moved to approve staff recommendation and Commissioner Craig seconded.

IT WAS MOVED ( YEE/CRAIG) AND CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE (6-0-0-1-0) THE PLANNING COMMISSION – HELD PUBLIC HEARING; AND

FOUND THAT ACTION ON THE APPEAL IS EXEMPT FROM THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA), PURSUANT TO,

WITHOUT LIMITATION, EACH ON A SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT
BASIS, CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15378 (PROJECT), AS THE ACTION ON THE APPEAL IS NOT CONSIDERED A “PROJECT”; CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15270 (PROJECTS WHICH ARE DISAPPROVED), AS CEQA DOES

NOT APPLY TO PROJECTS WHICH A PUBLIC AGENCY REJECTS OR
DISAPPROVES; AND/OR CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15061(B)(3) (REVIEW

FOR EXEMPTION), IN THAT THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY THAT ACTION ON

THE APPEAL WOULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE
ENVIRONMENT;
AND

FOUND THAT THE PROPOSED CONCESSION TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED

MINIMUM DENSITY IS INCONSISTENT WITH AND CONTRARY TO STATE

LAW AND SHOULD BE DENIED PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 65915(D)(1)(C), THE FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSE, GOALS, AND

POLICIES FOR THE TRANSIT -ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT OUTLINED IN THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN AND WARM SPRINGS/SOUTH FREMONT

COMMUNITY PLAN, AND STANDARDS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, FOR THE REASONS CONTAINED IN THIS STAFF REPORT;
AND
DENIED THE FIRST-PARTY APPEAL (UPHOLDING STAFF’S DECISION).

The motion carried by the following vote:

AYES: 6 – Basrai, Craig, Ezzy, Liu, Yee, Zhang
NOES: 0
ABSTAIN: 0
ABSENT: 1 – Ramamurthi
RECUSE: 0

5.C.d
Packet Pg. 142
Attachment: Informational Item 3 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - September 25 2025 (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY 1 Kevin Lee
From:

Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2025 1:52 PM
To: Kevin Lee
Cc: Planning Commission
Subject: Public Comment – Planning Commission 09/25/2025 – 44960 Lopes Rd Appeal (PLN2026-00023)
Dear Planning Commission and Project Planner Kevin Lee, I live within the notice area near 44960 Lopes Rd. I respectfully ask the Commission to delay or deny the appeal and pause the underlying application until core community issues are addressed with enforceable measures.

Lopes Rd is a short, narrow street with severe parking constraints—most nearby homes have single-car garages, curb space is already saturated, visitors often have nowhere to park, and nighttime parking is difficult. The site also sits by a secondary access to Lila Bringhurst Elementary; during arrival and dismissal, queues spill over, slowing commuters and elevating pedestrian safety and cleanliness concerns (e.g., litter). In addition, this parcel is our last open view of the hills and the only green buffer; new buildings would reduce sunlight and privacy for adjacent homes.

Requested actions: please require (1) a workable Residential Permit Parking (RPP) program (evening priority for residents, daytime limits with resident exemptions and visitor permits); (2) updated traffic/parking counts and a school-zone operations plan; and (3) privacy protections (height/setbacks/view corridor). Only after these protections are implemented and proven effective should any housing at this site be reconsidered.

Sir, it is a sincere request. Please give it due consideration before making a decision. Looking forward to hearing from you.

Thank you for your consideration.

Name
Address (street only is fine)
Informational Item 4 - Public Correspondence

LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY APPEAL
City Council Hearing
November 4, 2025

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 143
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) 1 Kevin Lee
From:

Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2025 9:41 AM
To: Kevin Lee
Cc: Planning Commission
Subject: Public Comment – Planning Commission 09/25/2025 – 44960 Lopes Rd Appeal (PLN2026-00023)
Dear Planning Commission and Project Planner Kevin Lee, I am a resident within the notice area near 44960 Lopes Road, and I respectfully urge the Commission to delay or deny the current appeal and pause the underlying application until key community concerns are addressed through enforceable measures.

Lopes Road is a short, narrow street already burdened by significant parking constraints. Most homes nearby have only single-car garages, curb space is fully saturated, and visitors often struggle to find parking—especially during evening hours. The project site is also adjacent to a secondary access point for Lila Bringhurst Elementary. During school arrival and dismissal times, traffic queues spill into the neighborhood, slowing commuters and raising concerns around pedestrian safety and cleanliness, including increased litter.

Additionally, this parcel represents the last open view of the hills and serves as a vital green buffer for our community. New development would reduce sunlight and privacy for adjacent homes.

I respectfully request the Commission take the following actions before considering any further development at this site:

1. Establish a workable Residential Permit Parking (RPP) program – prioritizing evening parking for residents, with daytime limits, resident exemptions, and visitor permits.

2. Require updated traffic and parking studies – including a school-zone operations plan that accounts for pickup/drop-off congestion and pedestrian safety.

3. Ensure privacy protections for nearby homes – such as building height limits, increased setbacks, and view corridor preservation.

Only after these protections are implemented and proven effective should any housing at this site be reconsidered.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 144
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) 1 Kevin Lee
From:

Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2025 7:21 PM
To: planinfo; Planning Commission; Kathy Kimberlin; Kevin Lee Subject: 44960 LOPES RD (PRP2023-00008) - Planning Commission (PLN2026-00023) Dear Planning Commission Members,
I am writing to express my concerns to the proposed development at 44960 Lopes Road. As a resident of this neighborhood, I have serious concerns about this project's impact on our community's safety, infrastructure, and quality of life.

My primary concerns are:

1. Traffic Safety and Parking:
o
Lopes Road is already experiencing dangerous traffic conditions with frequent accidents at intersections
o The narrow road cannot safely accommodate additional traffic volume o There is virtually no street parking available on Lopes Road o Existing residents struggle to find parking for themselves and visitors

2. Over-densification:
o Our area is already saturated with multiple apartment complexes o Community facilities, including our local park, are overcrowded o The proposed development would further strain our community resources o The neighborhood infrastructure was not designed for such high-density housing

3. Public Safety:
o We've seen a concerning increase in theft, vandalism, and littering in our area o Adding more high-density housing without addressing existing security issues would likely worsen these problems

4. School Impact:
o Additional large-scale residential developments will overwhelm our educational infrastructure
o The quality of education could be compromised due to overcrowding

5. Property Values:
o The excessive concentration of high-
density housing in our area threatens existing property values
o The character of our neighborhood would be fundamentally altered Given these significant concerns, I strongly urge the Planning Commission to deny this appeal and reject any further residential development in this already overcrowded area.

Sincerely,

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 145
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) 1 Kevin Lee
From: James Willis
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2025 12:16 AM
To: Kevin Lee; Mark Hungerford
Subject: Fw: Cancel PRP2023-00008 (44960 Lopes Rd) and Implement Immediate School-Zone & Parking Controls

James Willis

SENIOR PLANNER

City of Fremont | Community Development
39550 Liberty St., Fremont, CA 94538
(510) 494-4449 |
[email protected]

From: school-zone-safety <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2025 12:15:22 AM
To: James Willis <[email protected]>; Teresa Keng <[email protected]>; TransportationEngineering <[email protected]>; Development Services <[email protected]>; TrafficUnit <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: Joel Pullen <[email protected]>; Clifford Nguyen <[email protected]>; Engineering <[email protected]>; CClerk <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Planning Commission <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Cancel PRP2023-00008 (44960 Lopes Rd) and Implement Immediate School-Zone & Parking Controls

Dear City of Fremont, FUSD,
This is a brief supplement/correction to my earlier email regarding PRP2023-00008 (44960 Lopes Rd). 1) Resident Parking Permit (RPP) — request for a City-run pilot Please include in the record that residents are explicitly requesting an RPP pilot for the S. Grimmer / Insight / Wisdom / Lopes corridor: resident-priority overnight, daytime time-limited for visitors, and consistent enforcement funding. New projects should proportionally contribute to Year-1 startup & enforcement. This is essential to protect residential curbs and keep driveways/intersections clear. 2) Lila Bringhurst enrollment — >1,100 this year
Please also note that Lila Bringhurst Elementary’s enrollment reportedly exceeds 1,100 students this year, and parents are actively reporting peak-hour congestion and safety pressure around the school approaches. We ask the City/FUSD to publish 2024–25 enrollment (opening day & current month) and the related peak counts/queue-clearance data for transparency.

All other requests in the original letter remain the same, including:

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 146
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) 2  Cancel PRP2023-00008 or adopt a temporary moratorium on discretionary residential approvals until parking, school, and S. Grimmer/Lopes corridor mitigations are funded, permitted, and under contract;
 Immediate 30-day measures (staffed controls & joint enforcement; AB 413 daylighting signing/enforcement; all short-term stopping off-street);  If 44960 proceeds, require step-down massing, privacy screening/glazing, evergreen buffers, and a shadow study before any Certificate of Occupancy.

Please attach this supplement to my previous email so it is included in the official record. Thank you for your attention.

Respectfully,
Residents of the S. Grimmer / Insight / Wisdom / Lopes corridor

On Sun, Sep 14, 2025 at 11:27 PM school-zone-safety <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mr. Willis and City of Fremont staff:

We are residents living next to Lila Bringhurst Elementary and the Warm Springs/South Fremont BART Station. On school days, peak-hour curb saturation and unsafe maneuvers routinely block residential access and heighten pedestrian risk. The root constraint is insufficient off-street short-term parking and limited on-campus drop-off capacity amid rapid, high-density housing nearby.

Below are concise observations and auditable requests.

I. Key Observations
A. School-hour operations
 Peak periods: ~7:30–8:30 AM and 2:30–3:30 PM. Recurring behaviors include double-parking, wrong-way curb stops, and mid-block U-turns, often impeding residential driveways and intersections.
 September 10, 2025 incidents: Near Accelerator Dr & Lopes Rd during a peak period, a crash related to improper stopping/driving occurred (no injuries). A separate vehicle–student collision was publicly reported the same day; the child was reportedly transported to the emergency department.
 Sight distance: The right-side school-exit crosswalk has limited approach sightlines; drivers often fail to yield in time.
 Curb saturation: Neighborhood curbs are already full; converting residential frontage to short- term school use is not feasible.

B. Planning case PRP2023-00008 (44960 Lopes Rd)
Request: Cancel PRP2023-00008 and decline further submittals at this location. The Lopes corridor and Accelerator approaches cannot safely or feasibly absorb added access/parking demand (see immediate controls below).

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 147
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) 3 II. Why 44960 Lopes Rd Is Infeasible (Findings)

1. Short-block geometry & queuing (Lopes Rd): A short, two-way funnel to the S. Grimmer signal with very limited storage. Any new driveways/curb activity would spill queues, block driveways/intersections, and raise conflict risk.

2. School proximity (Accelerator Ave): Curbs are full, sightlines are tight, and staffing is thin during peaks; any added project traffic would magnify student risk.

3. On-site capacity limits: Many townhomes along Lopes have single-car garages; second cars and visitors already spill to the public curb (see Exhibit F).

4. State daylighting rules: Required daylighting at crosswalks/driveways will further reduce the curb supply the corridor currently relies on.

5. Cumulative corridor growth: A newly completed, not-yet-occupied building on S. Grimmer across from the school, Aya Apartments (45147 Lopes Rd), and potential corner infill at S.

Grimmer & Old Warm Springs will add all-day person trips, turning movements, deliveries/ride- hail activity, and curb demand—compounding congestion, noise, and safety risks.

6. Livability, privacy & safety (mitigations if not canceled): Upper-story massing next to low-rise homes would reduce daylight and enable direct overlook; saturated curbs further invite theft/trespass, litter, wet-weather issues, and construction dust/noise. If not canceled, require upper-story stepbacks and privacy screening, CPTED measures (lighting/cameras, secure package rooms), a litter plan, and wet-weather/construction management—no occupancy until mitigation is installed and verified.

Finding: The City cannot make a “safe and adequate access” finding for 44960 Lopes Rd. Please terminate PRP2023-00008 and decline further submittals at this site.

If the City declines cancellation, minimum conditions should include objective, results-based mitigations:

1. Privacy & daylight: Increase front setbacks and/or provide upper-story stepbacks so that new massing protects daylight and avoids direct overlook of existing homes, or demonstrate equivalent outcomes with sections/shadow/overlook analyses.

2. Terraces & roofs: No direct-facing balconies/roof decks toward existing homes; any terrace must be side-oriented or screened with opaque treatments that achieve equivalent privacy.

3. Green screening: Provide evergreen planting sized to meet second/third-story sightlines.

4. Verification: No occupancy until mitigation—install and verify all privacy/screening measures before any Certificate of Occupancy, with photo-simulations from resident viewpoints.

III. Rail Proximity — Noise, Vibration & Safety
Given 44960 Lopes Rd is within a short walk of Warm Springs/South Fremont BART and residents already perceive pass-by vibration, require—before any discretionary approval or occupancy—the following FTA-consistent steps:

1. Independent noise & vibration study using on-site baseline measurements and projected buildout traffic + BART operations, evaluated against applicable residential and school thresholds.

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 148
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) 4 2. Mitigation design if exceedances are predicted: Track/structure measures, building isolation at foundations, and appropriately rated façades/windows with mechanical ventilation, followed by post-construction verification testing.

3. CPTED & operations plan for station-adjacent blocks (lighting, cameras, secure package rooms, coordinated enforcement to address high-turnover curb behaviors).

4. No-occupancy-until-mitigation and 12-month post-occupancy monitoring with publicly reported noise/vibration and complaint-response metrics.

IV. Immediate 30-Day Measures (Operations &
Engineering)
 Staffed controls at Accelerator/Wisdom, Wisdom/Insight, and along the school frontage (~7:30– 8:30 AM; 2:15–3:00 PM; plus wet-weather surge). Enforce no double-parking, no contraflow, and no blocking of driveways/intersections.
 Crosswalk sightlines (right-side school exit): Implement and enforce daylighting; deploy portable warnings; staff a crossing guard; notify parents not to stop in crosswalks.  Protect Lopes residential curbs: All temporary stopping must be off-street (on campus or on private property).
 Access management for any new frontage development: No new curb cuts/driveways on Lopes Rd; route project access/loading to off-street areas or other frontages with adequate storage—not to Lopes.

V. Corridor Accounting & Temporary Pause
 Publish official counts for this micro-area (built / under construction / approved pipeline).  If large-scale growth is targeted, first demonstrate with published analyses:
• adequate off-street parking and shared short-term facilities sized to observed demand; • school capacity & staffing sufficient for the micro-area; • traffic storage/LOS and corridor-wide noise mitigations along S. Grimmer and approaches via Insight St and Wisdom Rd, with committed funding and schedule.  Moratorium (narrow exception): Pause discretionary residential approvals in the micro-area until the above are funded, permitted, and under contract; exceptions only for projects that directly reduce corridor demand (e.g., shared structured parking, on-campus/off-street pick- up/drop-off, community/civic space, public open space).

VI. Transparency & Timelines
Within 60 days, publish a corrective plan with funding and phasing for: shared parking; on-campus drop-off improvements; rainy-season operations; a public-safety/CPTED program; and noise/vibration measurements. Provide a single point of contact and a timeline for the items above within 15 business days.

VII. Exhibits (submitted separately)

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 149
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) 5  Exhibit C — Crash on Lopes Rd related to improper stopping/driving (9/10/2025).  Exhibit E — Lopes Rd toward Warm Springs/South Fremont BART — both curbs occupied (view to bridge).
 Exhibit F — Lopes frontage of single-car garages (limited on-site capacity).  Exhibit G — Old Warm Springs/S. Grimmer intersection — front massing higher than rear (privacy/daylight).
 Exhibit H — Lopes approach at ~2:30 PM — both curbs occupied.  Exhibit I — S. Grimmer/Wisdom left-turn at ~2:30 PM — queue interacting with side parking.  Exhibit J — View from residence across the corridor (privacy/overlook).

Closing: Please confirm cancellation of PRP2023-00008 (44960 Lopes Rd) and provide the single point of contact and timelines requested above. Field observations, counts, and joint enforcement can be arranged by your teams; resident presence is not required.

Thank you for your prompt attention to student safety, neighborhood access, and livability.

Respectfully,
Residents of the S. Grimmer / Insight / Wisdom / Lopes corridor

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 150
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) 1 Kevin Lee
From: James Willis
Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2025 11:35 PM
To: Kevin Lee
Subject: Fw: Cancel PRP2023-00008 (44960 Lopes Rd) and Implement Immediate School-Zone & Parking Controls
Attachments: Exhibit F.jpg; Exhibit E.jpg; Exhibit_A.jpg; Exhibit G.jpg; Exhibit_C_rev.jpg; Exhibit I.jpg; Exhibit H.jpg; Exhibit_B.jpg; Image_20250912100454_1406_2.jpg; Image_ 20250914222223_1439_2.jpg
Follow Up Flag:

Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

James Willis

SENIOR PLANNER

City of Fremont | Community Development
39550 Liberty St., Fremont, CA 94538
(510) 494-4449 |
[email protected]

From: school-zone-safety <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2025 11:27:43 PM
To: James Willis <[email protected]>; Teresa Keng <[email protected]>; TransportationEngineering <[email protected]>; Development Services <[email protected]>; TrafficUnit <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: Joel Pullen <[email protected]>; Clifford Nguyen <[email protected]>; Engineering <[email protected]>; CClerk <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Planning Commission <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Cancel PRP2023-00008 (44960 Lopes Rd) and Implement Immediate School-Zone & Parking Controls

Dear Mr. Willis and City of Fremont staff:

Below are concise observations and auditable requests.

I. Key Observations

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 151
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) 2 A. School-hour operations
 Peak periods: ~7:30–8:30 AM and 2:30–3:30 PM. Recurring behaviors include double-parking, wrong-way curb stops, and mid-block U-turns, often impeding residential driveways and intersections.
 September 10, 2025 incidents: Near Accelerator Dr & Lopes Rd during a peak period, a crash related to improper stopping/driving occurred (no injuries). A separate vehicle–student collision was publicly reported the same day; the child was reportedly transported to the emergency department.
 Sight distance: The right-side school-
exit crosswalk has limited approach sightlines; drivers often fail to yield in time.
 Curb saturation: Neighborhood curbs are already full; converting residential frontage to short- term school use is not feasible.

II. Why 44960 Lopes Rd Is Infeasible (Findings)

2. School proximity (Accelerator Ave): Curbs are full, sightlines are tight, and staffing is thin during peaks; any added project traffic would magnify student risk.

3. On-site capacity limits: Many townhomes along Lopes have single-car garages; second cars and visitors already spill to the public curb (see Exhibit F).

4. State daylighting rules: Required daylighting at crosswalks/driveways will further reduce the curb supply the corridor currently relies on.

5. Cumulative corridor growth: A newly completed, not-yet-occupied building on S. Grimmer across from the school, Aya Apartments (45147 Lopes Rd), and potential corner infill at S.

Grimmer & Old Warm Springs will add all-day person trips, turning movements, deliveries/ride- hail activity, and curb demand—compounding congestion, noise, and safety risks.

Finding: The City cannot make a “safe and adequate access” finding for 44960 Lopes Rd. Please terminate PRP2023-00008 and decline further submittals at this site.

If the City declines cancellation, minimum conditions should include objective, results-based mitigations:

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 152
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) 3 1. Privacy & daylight: Increase front setbacks and/or provide upper-story stepbacks so that new massing protects daylight and avoids direct overlook of existing homes, or demonstrate equivalent outcomes with sections/shadow/overlook analyses.

2. Terraces & roofs: No direct-facing balconies/roof decks toward existing homes; any terrace must be side-oriented or screened with opaque treatments that achieve equivalent privacy.

3. Green screening: Provide evergreen planting sized to meet second/third-story sightlines.

4. Verification: No occupancy until mitigation—install and verify all privacy/screening measures before any Certificate of Occupancy, with photo-simulations from resident viewpoints.

1. Independent noise & vibration study using on-site baseline measurements and projected buildout traffic + BART operations, evaluated against applicable residential and school thresholds.

2. Mitigation design if exceedances are predicted: Track/structure measures, building isolation at foundations, and appropriately rated façades/windows with mechanical ventilation, followed by post-construction verification testing.

3. CPTED & operations plan for station-adjacent blocks (lighting, cameras, secure package rooms, coordinated enforcement to address high-turnover curb behaviors).

4. No-occupancy-until-mitigation and 12-month post-occupancy monitoring with publicly reported noise/vibration and complaint-response metrics.

V. Corridor Accounting & Temporary Pause
 Publish official counts for this micro-area (built / under construction / approved pipeline).

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 153
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) 4  If large-scale growth is targeted, first demonstrate with published analyses:
• adequate off-street parking and shared short-term facilities sized to observed demand; • school capacity & staffing sufficient for the micro-area; • traffic storage/LOS and corridor-wide noise mitigations along S. Grimmer and approaches via Insight St and Wisdom Rd, with committed funding and schedule.  Moratorium (narrow exception): Pause discretionary residential approvals in the micro-area until the above are funded, permitted, and under contract; exceptions only for projects that directly reduce corridor demand (e.g., shared structured parking, on-campus/off-street pick- up/drop-off, community/civic space, public open space).

VI. Transparency & Timelines
Within 60 days, publish a corrective plan with funding and phasing for: shared parking; on-campus drop- off improvements; rainy-season operations; a public-safety/CPTED program; and noise/vibration measurements. Provide a single point of contact and a timeline for the items above within 15 business days.

VII. Exhibits (submitted separately)
 Exhibit C — Crash on Lopes Rd related to improper stopping/driving (9/10/2025).  Exhibit E — Lopes Rd toward Warm Springs/South Fremont BART — both curbs occupied (view to bridge).
 Exhibit F — Lopes frontage of single-car garages (limited on-site capacity).  Exhibit G — Old Warm Springs/S. Grimmer intersection — front massing higher than rear (privacy/daylight).
 Exhibit H — Lopes approach at ~2:30 PM — both curbs occupied.  Exhibit I — S. Grimmer/Wisdom left-turn at ~2:30 PM — queue interacting with side parking.  Exhibit J — View from residence across the corridor (privacy/overlook).

Closing: Please confirm cancellation of PRP2023-
00008 (44960 Lopes Rd) and provide the single point of
contact and timelines requested above. Field observations, counts, and joint enforcement can be arranged by your teams; resident presence is not required.

Thank you for your prompt attention to student safety, neighborhood access, and livability.

Respectfully,
Residents of the S. Grimmer / Insight / Wisdom / Lopes corridor

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 154
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL)

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 155
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL)

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 156
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL)

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 157
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL)

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 158
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL)

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 159
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) 1 Kevin Lee
From: school-zone-safety <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2025 9:12 PM
To: Kevin Lee; planinfo
Cc: Planning Commission
Subject: Public Comment — Oppose/Continue Warm Springs – Lopes Road Appeal (PLN2026-00023) & related PLN2025-00253
Dear Planning Commission and Planner Kevin Lee ,
I am a resident at within the 300-foot notice area. Regarding the September 25, 2025 Planning Commission item “WARM SPRINGS – LOPES ROAD APPEAL – PLN2026-00023,” I respectfully oppose any action that would advance residential entitlements at this site. Please deny or continue (postpone) the appeal and pause the underlying application (PLN2025-00253) until core community issues are fully analyzed in public with auditable data and enforceable mitigations.

Key concerns (this site is unsuitable for housing at this time):
 School capacity & safety. Lila Bringhurst is already over 1,100 students this year, and arrival/dismissal operations are strained. Updated counts, a school-zone traffic/operations plan, and sight-distance/safety fixes are needed before any entitlement moves forward.  Traffic & parking. Accelerator Ave and Lopes Rd are short and quickly saturate; curb space is routinely full. Please require a plan for off-street short-term parking, an evening-priority Residential Permit Parking (RPP) program with daytime limits, and an emergency- access/queuing analysis memorialized as enforceable conditions of approval.  Nearby supply not fully absorbed. Multiple nearby multifamily projects—Aya Apartments (45147 Lopes Rd, actively leasing), Embark Apartments (44762 Old Warm Springs Blvd, leasing with move-in specials), and the Maracor Warm Springs Apartments (45021 Warm Springs Blvd, 239–241 affordable units approved/in pipeline)—are still leasing or not yet fully absorbed. Decisions should be tied to demonstrated absorption and monitored congestion/noise outcomes.
 Privacy & visual character. Natural views would be replaced by building massing and window-to- window exposure, reducing privacy and diminishing neighborhood character.  Construction-phase impacts & air quality. Dust (PM), diesel exhaust, debris, and haul/staging— especially harmful next to an elementary school—must be fully mitigated with monitoring and enforceable conditions.
 Process/CEQA. This appeal is a procedural step and, per the notice, is not treated as a CEQA “Project.” Before any action that effectively advances the project, the City should require comprehensive environmental and operational review.

Unless and until the applicant demonstrates—through auditable data and binding mitigations— that operations will be safe, functional, and compatible with a short, school-adjacent street, the City should not advance this entitlement.

If remote participation (Zoom/phone) is available on Sept 25, please share the instructions. If I cannot attend, please include this email in the public record and forward it to the Commissioners.

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 160
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) 2 Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Resident,

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 161
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) 1 Kevin Lee
From:

Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 2:52 PM
To: Kevin Lee
Cc: planinfo; Planning Commission
Subject: Public comment planning commission 9/25 - 4490 lopes rd appeal (PLN2026-00023) Hi,

I am existing owner of a townhome right beside this area, and this future development will have EXTREMELY bad impacts and consequences for our community and existing residents. There are already so many parking challenges and existing resources like schools are already over burdened. Adding 250 more homes will not only make this area a house dumping ground, but it will over burden and put additional pressure on parking, school, traffic, Lila park and more.

This proposed development is very alarming considering that it will completely defeat the original purpose of Transit Oriented Development of mix of residential and commercial in Innovation district.

Replacing the high density temporary floating population commercial (hotel/convention center) with another town home/ rental apartments with 250+ families permanently residing there will permanently damage the commercial value of innovation including the retail plans for the centre area opposite bart entrance
. Instead of a modern/vibrant square originally envisioned, innovation will end up as just another housing only site.

We are all for modernization so it would be much better not only for the community but for fremont as a city to get some sort of modern convention center or a retail space, similar to Bishop Ranch in Dublin.

This will create vibrance in the community and up level Warm

There is plenty of housing in this area. Adding even more housing is very wrong. It completely defeats the commercial aspect and property values for Innovation community.

Please reconsider this development for homes, it will end up being a very unfortunate and bad move for the community.

Thank you.

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 162
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) 1 Kevin Lee
From:

Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 11:53 PM
To: Kevin Lee
Subject: Re: 44960 Lopes Rd appeal
Hi,

I'm a resident at
Writing about the appeal to lower the occupancy rate.

This is alarming considering that it will completely defeat the original purpose of Transit Oriented Development of mix of residential and commercial in Innovation district. Instead of a modern/vibrant square originally envisioned, innovation will end up as just another housing only site. We need the commercial space to make this area more walkable and provide me opportunity to use the public transport.

Accommodating another 250+ families permanently there will put pressure on school, traffic, parking , Lila park etc.

There is already a large problem with street parking where residents and visitors do not have space to park. This area should not be rezoned.

Also why is the environmental study being skipped?

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 163
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) 1 Kevin Lee
From: Mail from
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 4:18 PM
To: Kevin Lee
Cc: Planning Commission
Subject: Public Comment – Planning Commission 09/25/2025 – 44960 Lopes Rd Appeal, PLN2026-00023
Dear Planning Commission and Project Planner Kevin Lee,

I live within the notice area near 44960 Lopes Rd. I respectfully ask the Commission to delay or deny the appeal and pause the underlying application until core community issues are addressed with enforceable measures.

Lopes Rd is a short, narrow street with severe parking constraints —most nearby homes have single-car garages, curb space is already saturated, visitors often have nowhere to park, and nighttime parking is difficult. The site also sits by a secondary access to Lila Bringhurst Elementary ; during arrival and dismissal, queues spill over, slowing commuters and elevating pedestrian safety and cleanliness concerns (e.g., litter). In addition, this parcel is our last open view of the hills and the only green buffer; new buildings would reduce sunlight and privacy for adjacent homes.

Requested actions: please require

1. A workable Residential Permit Parking (RPP) program (evening priority for residents, daytime limits with resident exemptions and visitor permits);

2. Updated traffic/parking counts and a school-zone operations plan; and

3. Privacy protections (height/setbacks/view corridor). Only after these protections are implemented and proven effective should any housing at this site be reconsidered.

Thank you for your consideration.

--
Regards,
--
(Home on Accelerator Ave)

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 164
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) 1 Kevin Lee
From:

Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 10:15 PM
To: Kevin Lee
Cc: Planning Commission
Subject: Public Comment – Planning Commission 09/25/2025 – 44960 Lopes Rd Appeal (PLN2026-00023)

Dear Planning Commission and Project Planner Kevin Lee,

Thank you for your consideration.

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 165
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) 1 Kevin Lee
From:

Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 6:27 PM
To: Kevin Lee
Cc: Planning Commission
Subject: Public Comment - Planning Commission 09/25/02025 - 44960 Lopes Road Appeal (PLN2026-0023)
Subject: Public Comment – Planning Commission 09/25/2025 – 44960 Lopes Rd Appeal (PLN2026- 00023)
To: [email protected] (Project Planner)
Cc: [email protected]

Dear Planning Commission and Project Planner Kevin Lee,

I recently received the planning commission notice of public hearing for 44960 Lopes Rd, Fremont, CA 94538.

I live within the notice area near 44960 Lopes Rd. We face various core issues at this location, having this new residential area will only worsen the situation.

I would respectfully ask the Commission to delay or deny the appeal and pause the underlying application until the following core community issues are addressed with enforceable measures.

1. Parking for resident
Many of the townhomes in the area don't have sufficient parking space. Therefore residents park their cars on the road. Plus Tesla employees park their cars in the area. The roadside parking is not easy to find.

2. Population density
Population density is already very high in the area and this is very noticeable.

3. Insufficient resources for outdoor children's play
Due to high population density, the only park (shared with the Lila Bringhurst Elementary School) is over crowded, and many a times small children gets bumped by the elder children playing in the same area

4. School capacity
Due to high population, the school always spill over queues and many children in the area already needs to travel to other schools.

Thank you for your consideration.

Regards,

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 166
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) 2 5.C.e
Packet Pg. 167
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) 1 Kevin Lee
From:

Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 10:15 PM
To: Kevin Lee
Cc: Planning Commission
Subject: Public Comment – Planning Commission 09/25/2025 – 44960 Lopes Rd Appeal (PLN2026-00023)
Dear Planning Commission and Project Planner Kevin Lee,

Thank you for your consideration.

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 168
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) 1 Kevin Lee
From:

Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 11:00 AM
To: Kevin Lee; Planning Commission
Cc: Teresa Keng; Desrie Campbell; Kathy Kimberlin; Yang Shao; Yajing Zhang; Raymond Liu; [email protected]; Arif S. Halim
Subject: Public Comment – Sept 25 Planning Commission – 44960 Lopes Rd Appeal (PLN2026-00023)
Attachments:

Exhibit_E.jpg; Exhibit_C_rev.jpg; Exhibit F.jpg; Exhibit_H.jpg; Exhibit_I.jpg Dear Planning Commission, Project Planner Kevin Lee, and to whom this may concern, I live within the notice area near 44960 Lopes Rd, and I strongly urge the Commission to delay or deny the appeal and place the underlying application on hold until the City addresses the core community impacts with clear, enforceable solutions. Proceeding without these protections would put residents, children, and commuters at risk while eroding the character of this neighborhood.

Parking and Street Constraints
Lopes Rd is a narrow, short street already under intense parking strain. Most nearby homes have only single- car garages, curbside capacity is saturated, and visitors often have nowhere to park—day or night. This has become a daily, ongoing problem that creates serious safety hazards for drivers, pedestrians, and children. Double-parking, illegal stopping, and poor visibility are routine. Adding housing without first fixing this will make an already unsafe situation worse. The City must provide a real, enforceable solution to this parking shortage—including residential permit parking, improved street signage, and safety enforcement— before considering further development.

School Zone Safety and Traffic
The parcel lies directly next to a secondary access point for Lila Bringhurst Elementary. During school drop-off and pick-up, traffic queues spill over onto Lopes Rd and nearby streets, creating congestion, slowing commuters, and placing children in harm’s way. Pedestrian safety, air quality, and neighborhood cleanliness (from litter) are all negatively impacted. Without an updated, enforceable traffic and school-zone operations plan, approving this project would exacerbate these hazards.

Neighborhood Character and Privacy
This parcel represents the last open view of the East Bay hills and serves as the only remaining green buffer for this area. New construction would permanently block sunlight, reduce privacy for adjacent homes, and destroy the open hillside view that defines our neighborhood’s identity. Once this view is gone, it is gone forever.

Requested Actions
To safeguard public safety, preserve neighborhood character, and maintain livability, I respectfully request that the Commission require the following before any development is approved:

1. A workable Residential Permit Parking (RPP) program—with evening priority for residents, daytime time limits, exemptions for resident vehicles, and visitor permits.

2. Updated traffic and parking studies, plus a comprehensive and enforceable school-zone operations plan reflecting current conditions.

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 169
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) 2 3. Privacy protections are ensured through enforceable building height limits, setbacks, and the preservation of a view corridor.

4. A clear, enforceable City-led plan to resolve the existing daily parking shortage and related safety problems on Lopes Rd.

These protections are not optional—they are essential. Only after they are in place and proven effective should any housing proposal at this site be reconsidered.

Thank you for your attention to these urgent concerns and for ensuring that the voices and safety of the community are not overlooked.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Street Address only]
Attachments (with captions):
 Exhibit E: Curb saturation on Lopes Rd near Accelerator, weekday ~7:45–8:05 AM; visitors have no available short-term parking.
 Exhibit C: Crash on Lopes Rd related to improper stopping/driving (9/10/2025).  Exhibit F: Single-car garages.
 Exhibit H: Protect our last open view of the East Bay hills.  Exhibit I: Forcing residents to park illegally.

This information and communication, including attachments, is for the exclusive use of the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged information. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination, other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply email or telephone. Thank you!

ቈ቉ቊቋቌቍ቎቏ቐቑ ၕ

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 170
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL)

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 171
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL)

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 172
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL)

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 173
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) 1 Kevin Lee
From:

Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 12:00 PM
To: Kevin Lee; Teresa Keng; Raymond Liu; [email protected]; Planning Commission; Kathy Kimberlin; Desrie Campbell; Yang Shao; Yajing Zhang Cc: Arif S. Halim
Subject: Public Comment to Urgent Request Delay/Deny the appeal – Sept 25 Planning Commission – 44960 Lopes Rd Appeal (PLN2026-00023)
Dear Planning Commission, Project Planner Kvin Lee, Whom It May Concern,

I am a resident within the notice area near 44960 Lopes Rd, and I am writing to strongly urge the Commission to delay or deny the appeal and place the underlying application on hold until core community concerns are addressed with clear, enforceable solutions. Moving forward without these protections would endanger residents, children, and commuters, while permanently eroding the character of our neighborhood.

Parking and Street Constraints
Lopes Rd is a narrow, short street already under severe parking strain. Most nearby homes have only single-car garages, curb space is saturated, and visitors often struggle to find any legal parking - day or night. This daily issue creates serious
safety hazards for drivers, pedestrians, and especially children.

Double-parking, illegal stopping, and poor visibility are routine.

Adding more housing without addressing these problems will only worsen them.

Before Considering any new development, the City must Implement a real, enforceable solution to the parking crisis, including:
 A Residential Permit Parking (RPP) Program
 Improved street signage and enforcement
 Designated visitor parking provisions.

School Zone Safety and Traffic
The parcel sits directly adjacent to a secondary entrance for Lila Bringhurst Elementary. During school drop-off and pick-up, traffic backs up onto Lopes Rd and nearby streets, creating congestion, slowing commuters, and placing children at risk.

The area already suffers from reduced air quality, increased litter, and pedestrian danger. Without a detailed, enforceable school-zone traffic and safety plan, approving further development would significantly increase these hazards.

Neighborhood Character and Privacy
This parcel represents the last remaining open view of the East Bay hills, providing a crucial green buffer that defines the visual identity of our neighborhood. New contraction would:
 Permanently block sunlight

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 174
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) 2  Reduce privacy for adjacent homes
 Erase the open hillside view that gives our community its sense of place Once this view is lost, it cannot be recovered.

Requested Actions
To protect public safety, preserve our neighborhood's character, and maintain livability, I respectfully request the Commission require the following before any development is approved:

1. Residential Permit Parking (RPP) Program
 Evening priority for residents
 Daytime limits
 Exemptions for resident vehicles

2. Updated Traffic and Parking Studies
 Reflecting current conditions
 Including a comprehensive and enforceable school-zone operations plan

3. Privacy and View Portections
 Enforceable building height limits and setbacks
 Preservation of a view corridor to the East Bay hills

4. City-Led Safety Plan
 A clear, enforceable action plan to address current parking shortages and daily safety concerns on Lopes Rd.

These protections are not optional- they are essential. Only after they are in place, and their effectiveness is demonstrated, should any housing proposal at this site be reconsidered.

Thank you for your attention to these urgent concerns and ensuring that the safety and voice of our community are not overlooked.

Sincerely,

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 175
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) 1 Kevin Lee
From:

Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2025 12:57 PM
To: Kevin Lee; Planning Commission
Cc: Joel Pullen; CClerk; Teresa Keng; Desrie Campbell; Kathy Kimberlin; Yang Shao; Yajing Zhang; Raymond Liu; [email protected]; Raj Salwan Subject: Public Comment – 9/25/2025 PC – 44960 Lopes Rd (PRP2023-00008) – Continue/Deny Attachments: 44960_Lopes_annotated_EN_v2 (2).png
Dear Planning Commissioners, Mayor, Councilmembers, and City Staff, Please enter this letter (and attachment) into the public record and the agenda packet for the September 25, 2025 Planning Commission agenda item for 44960 Lopes Rd (PRP2023-00008).

I am unable to attend the hearing; please accept this as my written testimony and confirm inclusion in the packet.

Resident and student safety is our first priority.

I live within the mailed-notice area next to Lila Bringhurst Elementary (Wisdom Rd / Accelerator Ave).

For the Sept 25, 2025 hearing on 44960 Lopes Rd (PRP2023-00008), please do not advance any residential entitlements until the applicant and staff publish objective, auditable materials meeting the standards below. If such findings cannot be made, please DENY. If more work is needed, please CONTINUE to a date certain with the directions listed here.

A) Required objective submittals & conditions (before any action)

1. >5-acre Master Plan (mandatory for this site). Show phasing; connected bike/ped/streets; acceptable interim uses; and that later phases meet minimum intensities. Publish for public review before any entitlement action.

2. School-Zone Safety & Operations Plan (objective metrics). Fresh AM/PM counts at Wisdom/Accelerator and Lopes/S. Grimmer; modeled queue storage/clearance times; sight- distance compliance at crossings; funded adult crossing-guard coverage; and a wet-weather incident plan sized to true peaks.

3. Emergency-access compliance (CFC). Demonstrate fire-apparatus clear widths/turning radii/vertical clearance and no-parking controls that remain reliable during school peaks; emergency routes must not depend on curbside stopping along school frontages.

4. Construction-phase traffic & parking controls (protect residents and the school). • Keep Lopes Rd open to local residents at all times; no general closure during school peaks. • Route all construction trucks via S. Grimmer Blvd only—no use of Accelerator Ave or school frontages.
• 100% off-street worker parking (on-site or leased lots); no on-street worker parking within 1,000 ft of the school.
• Peak-hour blackout windows for haul/staging (7:15–8:45 AM and 2:15–3:45 PM school days) and flaggers at S. Grimmer/Lopes if needed.
• Continuous dust/PM monitoring; when thresholds are exceeded, provide window-seal and MERV-13/16 filter support for affected homes.

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 176
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) 2 5. Cumulative-load analysis. Stack impacts with AYA (45147 Lopes Rd) now leasing and 45021 Warm Springs Blvd (~239 units) in the pipeline; conditions are not yet stabilized. Size on-site lay- bys and short-term parking accordingly.

6. Residential Parking Permit (RPP) & curb-management program (safety-first). • Adopt an evening-priority RPP zone around Lopes / Accelerator / Wisdom, with daytime time-limits, resident exemptions, and visitor permits.
• Provide clear signage, enforcement resources, and quarterly reporting. • Pair RPP with on-site school-peak lay-bys (no curb pick-up/drop-off on Lopes). • Include objective triggers (e.g., curb occupancy >85% or school-peak queues exceeding one block for 2 consecutive quarters) to tighten RPP/time-limits or expand the zone if needed.

B) Lower-impact first-phase alternatives next to a school  Shared public parking & mobility hub (school-peak lay-bys, secure bike rooms/lockers, TDM features).
 Linear green buffer + noise attenuation along the school edge to reduce noise/PM and improve safe walking routes.
 Small public-safety satellite/community room (limited hours)—deters theft without adding curb pick-up/drop-off.
 Stormwater/green-infrastructure basin that doubles as shaded open space and heat/PM relief.  If a built tenant must precede housing, limit to light-innovation/office-service with strict peak- hour trip caps and no curb pick-up/drop-off operations.

C) Legal framing (for the record)
 SB 330 (Housing Crisis Act) prevents down-zoning and locks the process; it does not erase the >5- acre Master Plan requirement.
 State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code §65915) allows added units and targeted waivers only with qualifying affordability and project-specific findings that a standard would physically preclude the bonus—not to reduce local minimum intensity.
 TOD overlay is a local minimum-intensity tool near BART. If the appellant claims SB 330/DBL can lower TOD minimums, require written, code-specific findings; until then, do not act on that premise.

Bottom line: With resident and student safety first, require the >5-acre Master Plan, a Residential Parking Permit (RPP)–based curb-management program, and objective school-zone/emergency-access findings before any action on 44960. If those findings cannot be made, DENY; otherwise, CONTINUE to a date certain and direct the applicant to deliver the required materials for public review. Given the appellant’s assertions, please treat the above Data & Conditions Checklist as the minimum objective package to be published at least 10 days before any continued hearing; the absence of any item should result in no action and a date-certain continuance.

Thank you for your consideration and for prioritizing resident and student safety.

Sincerely,

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 177
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) 3 Attachment: Annotated map highlighting left-turn queue blocking, short Lopes segment, and pedestrian sightline blind spot near Wisdom/Accelerator

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 178
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL)

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 179
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) 1 Kevin Lee
From:

Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2025 12:17 PM
To: Kevin Lee
Cc: Planning Commission; Raymond Liu; Yajing Zhang; Yang Shao; Kathy Kimberlin; Desrie Campbell; Teresa Keng
Subject: Public Comment - Planning Commission 09/25/02025 - 44960 Lopes Road Appeal (PLN2026-0023)
Dear Planning Commission and Project Planner Kevin Lee,

I recently received the planning commission notice of public hearing for 44960 Lopes Rd, Fremont, CA 94538.

I live within the notice area near 44960 Lopes Rd. We face various core issues at this location, having this new residential area will only worsen the situation.

I would respectfully ask the Commission to delay or deny the appeal and pause the underlying application until the following core community issues are addressed with enforceable measures.

2. Population density
Population density is already very high in the area and this is very noticeable.

4. School capacity
Due to high population, the school always spill over queues and many children in the area already needs to travel to other schools.

Thank you for your consideration.

Regards,

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 180
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) 1 Kevin Lee
From:

Sent: Monday, September 22, 2025 6:36 PM
To: Kevin Lee
Cc: Planning Commission
Subject: Public Comment – Sept 25 Planning Commission – 44960 Lopes Rd Appeal (PLN2026-00023)
Attachments: Exhibit_E.jpg; Exhibit_C_rev.jpg; Exhibit F.jpg Dear Planning Commission and Project Planner Kevin Lee, I live within the notice area near I respectfully ask the Commission to delay or deny the appeal and pause the underlying application until core community issues are addressed with enforceable measures.

Lopes Rd is a short, narrow street with severe parking constraints—most nearby homes have single- car garages, curb space is already saturated, visitors often have nowhere to park, and nighttime parking is difficult. The site also sits by a secondary access to Tesla factory and Lila Bringhurst Elementary; during arrival and dismissal, queues spill over, slowing commuters and elevating pedestrian safety and cleanliness concerns (e.g., litter). In addition, this parcel has a lot of commuter traffic from the Tesla factory which further inhibits the commuting space. Considering the future construction in this area will significantly impact our standard of living from the construction noise and dust and debris and will be a serious health hazard to the residents living nearby.

Requested actions: please require (1) a workable Residential Permit Parking (RPP) program (evening priority for residents, daytime limits with resident exemptions and visitor permits); (2) updated traffic/parking counts and a school-zone operations plan; (3) privacy protections (height/setbacks/view corridor); and (4) separate construction access road so the traffic from heavy vehicles is not on residential streets
. Only after these protections are implemented and proven effective should any housing at this site be reconsidered.

Thank you for your consideration.

Attachments (with captions):
 Exhibit E: Curb saturation on Lopes Rd near Accelerator, weekday ~7:45–8:05 AM; visitors have no available short-term parking and walking distance to elementary school's designated drop- off and pick up zone
 Exhibit C: Crash on Lopes Rd related to improper stopping/driving (9/10/2025).  Exhibit F: single car garages

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 181
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL)

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 182
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL)

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 183
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) 1 Kevin Lee
From:

Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2025 10:07 AM
To: Kevin Lee; Planning Commission
Cc: Joel Pullen; CClerk; Teresa Keng; Desrie Campbell; Kathy Kimberlin; Yang Shao; Yajing Zhang; Raymond Liu; [email protected]; Raj Salwan Subject: Public Comment – 9/25/2025 PC – 44960 Lopes Rd (PRP2023-00008) Dear Planning Commissioners, Mayor, Councilmembers, and City Staff,

Please include this letter and its attachment in the public record and agenda packet for the September 25, 2025 Planning Commission hearing regarding 44960 Lopes Rd (PRP2023-00008).

Resident and student safety must remain our top priority.

I reside within the mailed-notice area adjacent to Lila Bringhurst Elementary (Wisdom Rd / Accelerator Ave). For the September 25, 2025 hearing on 44960 Lopes Rd (PRP2023-00008), I urge you not to approve any residential entitlements until the applicant and staff provide objective, verifiable documentation meeting the standards outlined below. If these requirements cannot be satisfied, please DENY the application. If additional work is necessary, please CONTINUE to a specific date with the following directives.

A) Mandatory objective submissions & conditions (required before any action)

Master Plan for properties exceeding 5 acres (required for this site). Must include phasing details, connected bicycle/pedestrian/street networks, acceptable interim uses, and demonstration that future phases meet minimum density requirements. This plan must be published for public review prior to any entitlement decision.

School-Zone Safety & Operations Plan with measurable metrics. Include current AM/PM traffic counts at Wisdom/Accelerator and Lopes/S. Grimmer intersections, modeled queue storage and clearance times, sight-distance verification at crossings, funded adult crossing guard coverage, and an inclement weather response plan designed for actual peak conditions.

Emergency Access Compliance per California Fire Code. Verify fire apparatus clearance widths, turning radii, vertical clearance, and no-parking enforcement that remains effective during school peak hours. Emergency routes cannot rely on curbside stopping along school frontages.

Construction-Phase Traffic & Parking Management (protecting residents and school operations).
• Maintain Lopes Rd access for local residents at all times; prohibit general closures during school peak hours.
• Direct all construction vehicles via S. Grimmer Blvd exclusively—prohibit use of Accelerator Ave or school frontage streets.
• Require 100% off-street worker parking (on-site or leased facilities); prohibit worker parking on streets within 1,000 feet of the school.
• Establish peak-hour construction blackout periods (7:15–8:45 AM and 2:15–3:45 PM on school days) and deploy flaggers at S. Grimmer/Lopes intersection when necessary. • Implement continuous dust and particulate matter monitoring; when thresholds are exceeded, provide window sealing and MERV-13/16 filter assistance for affected residences.

Cumulative Impact Analysis. Evaluate combined effects with AYA (45147 Lopes Rd) currently leasing and 45021 Warm Springs Blvd (~239 units) in development pipeline, as conditions remain unstable. Size on-site staging areas and short-term parking accordingly.

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 184
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) 2 Residential Parking Permit (RPP) & Curb Management Program (safety-focused). • Establish evening-priority RPP zone encompassing Lopes/Accelerator/Wisdom area with daytime time restrictions, resident exemptions, and visitor permits. • Install clear signage, provide enforcement resources, and submit quarterly compliance reports.
• Combine RPP with on-site school-peak staging areas (eliminate curbside pickup/drop-off on Lopes).
• Include measurable triggers (such as curb occupancy exceeding 85% or school-peak queues extending beyond one block for two consecutive quarters) to strengthen RPP/time restrictions or expand the zone as needed.

B) Reduced-impact first-phase alternatives adjacent to school

Shared public parking & mobility hub (school-peak staging areas, secure bicycle storage/lockers, transportation demand management features).

Linear green buffer with noise reduction along school boundary to minimize noise/particulate impacts and enhance safe pedestrian routes.

Small public safety satellite/community facility (limited operating hours)—provides security deterrent without generating curbside pickup/drop-off activity.

Stormwater/green infrastructure basin serving dual purpose as shaded open space and heat/particulate relief.

If built development must precede housing, restrict to light innovation/office services with strict peak-hour trip limitations and no curbside pickup/drop-off operations.

Thanks

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 185
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) 1 Kevin Lee
From:

Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2025 8:15 PM
To: Kevin Lee
Cc: Planning Commission
Subject: Public Comment – Planning Commission 09/25/2025 – 44960 Lopes Rd Appeal (PLN2026-00023)
Dear Planning Commission and Project Planner Kevin Lee,

Requested actions:

Please require
(1) a workable Residential Permit Parking (RPP) program (evening priority for residents, daytime limits with resident exemptions and visitor permits);
(2) updated traffic/parking counts and a school-zone operations plan; and (3) privacy protections (height/setbacks/view corridor). Only after these protections are implemented and proven effective should any housing at this site be reconsidered.

Thank you for your consideration.

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 186
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) 1 Kevin Lee
From: James Willis
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2025 8:28 AM
To: Kevin Lee
Subject: FW: Urgent Request: Cancel or Redesign PRP2023-00008 (44960 Lopes Rd) This was in my spam folder. Don't know if you saw it previously.

James Willis

SENIOR PLANNER

City of Fremont | Community Development
39550 Liberty St., Fremont, CA 94538
(510) 494-4449 | [email protected]

-----Original Message-----
From:

Subject: Urgent Request: Cancel or Redesign PRP2023-00008 (44960 Lopes Rd)

Dear City of Fremont Staff,

We are residents living near Lila Bringhurst Elementary and the Warm Springs/South Fremont BART Station. As immediate neighbors, we are deeply concerned about Planning Case PRP2023-00008 (44960 Lopes Rd) and urge the City to cancel this project or require a significant redesign to reduce density and address livability, safety, and TOD compliance.

I. Core Concerns

1. Safety & School Impact

* On school days, peak-hour congestion already creates unsafe conditions: double-parking, wrong-way stops, and U-turns block driveways and put students at risk.

* Recent incidents include a crash and a reported vehicle–student collision (September 10, 2025).

Adding another 250+ families will only magnify these risks.

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 187
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) 2 2. Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Defeat

* The Innovation District was envisioned as a vibrant mix of commercial, retail, and residential near BART.

* Replacing the original high-density commercial (hotel/convention center) use with permanent housing undermines this vision, reducing retail viability and turning the site into another housing-only block.

* Shared public facilities (parking/EV charging) would effectively become private, further weakening TOD goals.

3. Overburdened Infrastructure

* Local schools, traffic corridors, curb parking, and Lila Bringhurst Park are already under pressure.

* Rezoning to accommodate another large permanent residential population without environmental review is inequitable and unsustainable.

II. Request for Action

* Primary Request: Cancel PRP2023-00008 and decline similar future submittals at 44960 Lopes Rd.

* If Not Canceled: Require objective, enforceable mitigations prior to any occupancy:

* Stepbacks and setbacks to protect privacy and daylight for existing residents.

* No new curb cuts/driveways on Lopes Rd; access must be routed elsewhere.

* Independent noise and vibration studies with mitigation before occupancy.

* CPTED measures (lighting, cameras, package security) and strict litter/construction management.

* Verified installation of mitigations before issuing any Certificate of Occupancy.

III. Alternative Recommendations

* Preserve the original TOD vision by attracting hotel/convention/retail uses, which would benefit the entire district and BART station area.

* If housing is unavoidable, scale it down to low-density residential and pair it with community-serving uses (public park, civic space, or school facilities).

IV. Transparency & Next Steps

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 188
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) 3 We respectfully request:

1. Confirmation of cancellation of PRP2023-00008, or publication of revised, enforceable conditions.

2. A single point of contact for residents.

3. Publication of traffic, parking, school capacity, and environmental analyses for this corridor.

This issue deserves urgent, careful consideration. The City’s decision here will permanently shape the only planned Innovation District in Fremont—whether it becomes a vibrant mixed-use hub or another congested housing tract.

Thank you for your prompt attention to student safety, neighborhood access, and the preservation of Fremont’s long-term innovation vision.

Respectfully,
Residents of the S. Grimmer / Insight / Wisdom / Lopes Corridor

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 189
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) 1 Kevin Lee
From:

Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2025 8:05 AM
To: Kevin Lee
Subject: Fwd: Public hearing 09/25 comment on WARM SPRINGS - LOPES ROAD APPEAL – 44960 Lopes Road - PRP2025-00035 and PLN2026-00023 and request to deny this appeal
Follow Up Flag:

Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Additional objections to the proposed low density housing project at 44960 Lopes Rd

1. Any additional work by the petitioner/proposer should be allowed only after the determination is made by the Fremont planning commission to go ahead with the proposal. The proposer should not assume whatever frivolous arguments put forth by them with regards to the concessions they are demanding are their right under the state affordable housing law and jump the gun unilaterally proceeding with the project thus complicating matters if the city has to go to court to stop the work related to the project.

This includes any environmental studies clearances etc.

2. If city of Fremont naively gives in to these dubious project concessions like lowering DBS to allow townhouses instead of high density commercial as demanded by the proposer these law firms take it as a precedent and argue for even more silly concessions and rezoning under the guise of affordable housing in prime properties in TOD zones or otherwise in fremont and greater bay area. All TOD, local and city zoning laws will be challenged as demanded concessions are their right and must be granted. City of Fremont must oppose these kind of arguments/appeals which go against the intent of the laws tooth and nail, in the courts until the very end. If many such re-zoned residential communities are built in our TOD zone along S grimmer and S Fremont blvds under the guise of DBS or other frivolous concessions as right, such supply will drastically reduce my property value and rental potential. This is unacceptable for a master planned community.

3. Even if the proposed townhouses or any other construction must adhere to the highest safety and environmental health standards so that it does not cause health problems to the nearby residents like us in the neighborhood. Lot of children, elderly and immune compromised people living in the neighborhood. High density project is more likely to follow the higher standards than a low density housing project thus this proposed project is of more risky to us.

4. Safety of the Lopes road traffic. Many accidents are already happening at the Lopes S Grimmer intersection. S Grimmer and Old warm springs roads at the intersection are major roads where as lopes road leading to Bart station is narrow, short with speed limit 10 mph. You can expect low green signal priority for lopes road and back ups on the road frustrating drivers making them more likely to jump red signal with potentially fatal collisions. I remember the fatal collision in that intersection on October 14,2024 in which Kamala’s Patel in white Tesla crashed there and lost his life. This was even before lopes road opened for through traffic with 10 mph speed limit. Parking on the lopes road and temporary double parking by delivery take-out drivers will make it virtually impossible for

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 190
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) 2 us current innovation residents to use the nearest lopes entrance (our usual entrance) safely after the proposed townhouse community. Those residents are likely to use our neighborhood roads and double park in our streets making life miserable for everyone.

5. I would like to know if the proposer somehow intentionally deliberately delayed any construction on this parcel until the master developers left with the hope of making it low density residential in stead of original high density development & planned to piggyback on the existing facilities of the community. If their efforts with local, state governments went beyond the normal level of lobbying into any illegal inducements to get such preferential treatment and hope for such concessions as a given/right.Fremont and California government departments must be ethical, transparent and accountable to the residents and enforce the laws/rules as originally laid down with the city economic interests above private developers interests.

Thank you.

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From:

Date: Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 10:29 PM
Subject: Public hearing 09/25 comment on WARM SPRINGS - LOPES ROAD APPEAL – 44960 Lopes Road - PRP2025-00035 and PLN2026-00023 and request to deny this appeal To: <[email protected]>

Dear Mr Kevin Lee,

My name is I am the owner of building that is
adjacent to this 44960 Lopes Rd property within 300 ft. I read and understood the documentation made available on the fremont planning commission website - under meeting agenda for 09/25. Thank you for the information.

I am writing this comment as a strong objection to the proposed Low density townhouse development.

Please expressly DENY the appeal as already recommended by your staff.

My comments here include some of the reasons/objections you missed in your report:

1. Ingenuous claim about being located in a liquefaction zone.

"on an approximately 6.72-
acre site at the southeastern intersection of Lopes Road and S. Grimmer Blvd. in Fremont that is partially located in a liquefaction zone. Accordingly, the Proposed Project meets the requirements of the Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code § 65915)"

Please take a look at the CNRA map of the parcel:

https://maps-cnra-cadoc.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/cadoc::cgs-seismic-hazards-program- liquefaction-zones/explore?location=37.502225%2C-121.939944%2C17.00

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 191
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) 3 asking for reduced density by constructing town homes with less load and development standards and thus reducing the cost, thus justifying the DBS.

It is ingenious for two reasons:
a. From the following CNRA liquefaction-zones link you can clearly see the parcel at address 44960 Lopes road is barely (at the most 10% area near grimmer blvd intersection corner) in the liquefaction zone. Claiming it to be "partially" in the liquefaction zone conflates and contradicts the facts. They can easily build normal density 50 buildings in that parcel with a little extra design care in that 10% corner area as needed.

I am familiar with this map because I consulted it when I bought my condominium. As the homeowner, I was disappointed that our building on this side of Lopes road was totally in the liquefaction zone and on the other side of Lopes Rd, including this 44960 Lopes Rd parcel and Warm Springs BART was less than 300 ft away but totally safe from the liquefaction zone perspective. It makes sense that a railway line and
BART station are built on a safe land parel.

b. DBS allows for concessions when the overall cost is reduced by INCREASING the number of units, not by REDUCING the number of units (density reduction). This cost reduction by less load bearing buildings does not qualify based on the intent of the california law as your staff correctly pointed out. It's plain silly HSW law/first party even came up with this justification. They are even claiming additional affordable townhouse units instead of additional units of high density buildings with ample parking floors.

2. Broken promises to current Innovation residents like us about the TOD commercial potential: I read that that parcel is zoned for high density commercial like a hotel/convention center as part of the original TODmaster plan for Warm Springs innovation district that was part of my condo title documents. City of Fremont needs a convention center and a connected hotel and these Warm Springs BART adjacent parcels on either side of the tracks are suitable for that as originally zoned high density areas. Such a development with a floating population enhances the commercial potential of the proposed Innovation side BART plaza square commercial establishments in the middle. If you allow a low density townhome community at this site, it will completely ruin the commercial potential of a vibrant innovation square/plaza shops as envisioned in the master plan. Is this first party is going to compensate for the loss of commercial value of Innovation plaza when they build low density townhomes instead of a commercial/convention center? This is a classic bait and switch. I am looking forward to vibrant walkable shops in the middle with a floating population that supports it. City of Fremont will benefit from a commercial property than another townhomes property

Public TOD facilities already built like free EV charging , van pool parking etc in Aya and Leya apartments lower floors on innovation side will not be used for intended purposes if the Innovation TOD master plan components are not developed as originally planned. Why completely defeat the original purpose (commercial/residential combo) for the sake of a very few additional DBS units if at all. Please stick to the 50 DBS as originally planned. Fremont economic development is more important.

3. This adjacent proposed townhome project with a permanent resident population instead of floating population will cause all kinds of additional burdens with entrances on small and short stretch of Lopes road. These include school enrollment/lottery, traffic congestion, parking, school playground that is used as a public park, utilities, water, crime etc. The proposed development may not have a overhead costs like the original innovation developers or a HOA cost for the home owners.

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 192
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL)

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 193
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) 1 Kevin Lee
From:

Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2025 10:29 PM
To: Kevin Lee
Subject: Public hearing 09/25 comment on WARM SPRINGS - LOPES ROAD APPEAL – 44960 Lopes Road - PRP2025-00035 and PLN2026-00023 and request to deny this appeal Dear Mr Kevin Lee,

My name is . I am the owner of building that is
adjacent to this 44960 Lopes Rd property within 300 ft. I read and understood the documentation made available on the fremont planning commission website - under meeting agenda for 09/25. Thank you for the information.

I am writing this comment as a strong objection to the proposed Low density townhouse development.

Please expressly DENY the appeal as already recommended by your staff.

My comments here include some of the reasons/objections you missed in your report:

1. Ingenuous claim about being located in a liquefaction zone.

Please take a look at the CNRA map of the parcel:

https://maps-cnra-cadoc.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/cadoc::cgs-seismic-hazards-program- liquefaction-zones/explore?location=37.502225%2C-121.939944%2C17.00

Attachment 11209.pdf - HSW legal letter dated June 4 2025. This letter claims in a couple of places that the proposed project site is "partially located in a liquefaction zone" hence it meets the DBL. They are asking for reduced density by constructing town homes with less load and development standards and thus reducing the cost, thus justifying the DBS.

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 194
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) 2 300 ft away but totally safe from the liquefaction zone perspective. It makes sense that a railway line and BART station are built on a safe land parel.

They will simply use all existing innovation facilities without contributing to the TOD community. This is not fair, they should pay and contribute money like everyone else so far to the innovation community

regards

5.C.e
Packet Pg. 195
Attachment: Informational Item 4 Public Correspondence (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
651 Bannon Street Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95811
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
Oc
tober 29, 2025
J
oel Pullen
Community Development Director
City of Fremont
3300 Capitol Avenue
Fremont, CA 94538
D
ear Joel Pullen:

R
E: City of Fremont – Lopes Road Multifamily Project – Letter of Technical Assistance
T
he California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) received a request for technical assistance from the City of Fremont (City) regarding a proposed housing development project located at 44960 Lopes Road (Project). This letter provides technical assistance regarding the use of a State Density Bonus Law (SDBL)1 concession to reduce a local minimum density requirement.

P
roject Background
H
CD understands the Project site has a general plan land use designation of Innovation Center and a zoning designation of Warm Springs Innovation District – Planning Area 5.

The Project site is also located within a quarter mile of the Warm Springs/South Fremont Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station. The intent of this planning area is to create a mix of urban uses surrounding the BART station that maximizes development intensities and residential densities to encourage the use of transit and reduce emissions, among other things. To achieve this goal, the City’s general plan and zoning requires a minimum residential density within a quarter mile of the BART station of 50 dwelling units per acre.

T
he Project proposes to construct 127 multifamily residential units on an approximately

6.6-acre lot. The Project provides ten percent of the units to lower-income (LI) households and five percent of the units to moderate-income (MI) households, which makes the Project eligible for the SDBL. The applicant has requested an SDBL concession to reduce the minimum density requirement from the required 50 dwelling units per acre to 19 dwelling units per acre, the density of the proposed project. In addition, HCD understands that the City has determined the application to be incomplete.
1 Gov. Code, §§ 65915 – 65918.

Informational Item 5 - HCD Technical Assistance Letter

LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY APPEAL
City Council Hearing
November 4, 2025

5.C.f
Packet Pg. 196
Attachment: Informational Item 5 HCD Technical Assistance Letter (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) Joel Pullen, Community Development Director

Page 2 ends

As a courtesy, the City provided the applicant with a letter containing a list of comments addressing inconsistencies with state housing law, codes, policies, and other applicable standards along with the incomplete determination. This letter notified the applicant that staff would recommend that the Planning Commission deny the requested SDBL concession. The City’s municipal code allows applicants to appeal staff recommendations.
2 Accordingly, the applicant filed an appeal of the staff’s recommendation on August 6, 2025, and the appeal was heard by the Planning Commission on September 25, 2025. The Planning Commission upheld staff’s recommendation and denied the applicant’s appeal. The applicant appealed the Planning Commission’s denial to the City Council on September 26, 2025, and an appeal hearing is scheduled for November 4, 2025.

Statutory Background

The SDBL defines a concession to mean 1) a reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code requirements or architectural design requirements that exceed the minimum building standards approved by the California Building Standards Commission that results in identifiable cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs, 2) approval of mixed-use zoning if that would reduce the cost of the housing development, or 3) other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the developer or the local government that result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs.
3 A development standard is defined in the statute to mean a site or construction condition, including, but not limited to, a height limitation, setback requirement, floor area ratio, onsite open-space requirement, minimum lot area per unit requirement, or parking ratio. 4 Analysis

Minimum Density Cannot be Modified with a Concession

The applicant is seeking a concession to reduce the minimum density requirement from 50 dwelling units per acre to 19 dwelling units per acre. However, minimum density cannot be modified with a concession. The statute is clear that the intent of the law is “to include more total units in a project than would otherwise be allowed by the local zoning ordinance”
5 and to “produc[e] the maximum number of total housing units.”6 Using a

2 Fremont Municipal Code § 18.300.020(a).
3 Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (k).
4 Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (o)(2).
5 Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (u)(1).
6 Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (r).

5.C.f
Packet Pg. 197
Attachment: Informational Item 5 HCD Technical Assistance Letter (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) Joel Pullen, Community Development Director

Page 3 ends

concession to reduce a minimum density requirement would result in less housing and is therefore contrary to the fundamental intent and purpose of the law.7

The SDBL allows an applicant to obtain “a density increase over the otherwise maximum allowable gross residential density… or, if elected by the applicant, a lesser percentage of density increase, including, but not limited to, no increase in density.”8 However, nothing in the SDBL permits a decrease in density.

Further, if a concession could be used to decrease the density allowed on the parcel, there is no reason it could not be used to increase the density allowed on the parcel.

This would result in unlimited density, which is not the purpose of the SDBL. 9 Minimum Lot Area Per Unit

It is important to note that the definition of a development standard includes “minimum lot area per unit,”
10 which can generally be converted to “dwelling units per acre,” the typical expression of density. However, minimum lot area per unit should be analyzed carefully in context to determine how it is being used.

The application of the SDBL involves three primary steps:

• Step 1: Establish base density: The applicant must first determine the base density for the project site (i.e., identify the number of units that could ordinarily be built on the site without the SDBL). This requires identification of the land use and zoning designation and any applicable specific plan or overlay to determine the maximum permitted density on a project site.
11 • Step 2: Determine affordability levels provided and number of bonus units received: Next, the applicant must determine the level of affordability (low income, very low income, moderate income) and the percentage of affordable

7 Note that numerous other state housing laws support the use of minimum densities, particularly in areas near transit. These include Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c)), the Affordable Housing and High Roads Jobs Act (Gov. Code, § 65912.123, subd. (b)(1)(E)), and the Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act (Gov. Code, § 65912.157, subd. (a)(1), which will take effect January 1, 2026 (text available at
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB79)). 8 Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (f).
9 See HCD’s Letter of Technical Assistance to the County of Los Angeles, April 1, 2025, available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/la-county-hau-1777-ta- sdbl-04012025.pdf.
10 “Minimum lot area per unit” was added to the SDBL’s definition of “development standard” with the passing of AB 2334 (Chapter 651, Statutes of 2022).
11 Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (o)(6).

5.C.f
Packet Pg. 198
Attachment: Informational Item 5 HCD Technical Assistance Letter (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) Joel Pullen, Community Development Director

Page 4 ends

units a project will provide in order to determine the number of bonus units12 and concessions13 the project is entitled to.
• Step 3: Identify development standards or regulatory requirements to modify or eliminate: The applicant then begins to assess all development standards and other policies and regulations applicable to the site to design the project at the density permitted by the statute. Waivers are typically requested when an applicant encounters a development standard or other requirement that would physically preclude development of the project at the densities permitted by statute,
14 and concessions are typically requested to reduce costs to provide affordable housing.15

In some instances, a local government may determine density using the minimum lot area per dwelling unit, which can be converted to a dwelling unit per acre standard. Also, where a dwelling units per acre standard does not exist, a combination of the minimum lot area and the allowable residential use(s) may be used to derive residential density.16 In either of these cases, where minimum lot area per unit is being used to determine base density in Step 1, it cannot be modified by a concession for the purposes of calculating base density.

However, once the base density has been established in Step 1, and the number of affordable units provided and number of bonus units and concessions for which the project is eligible have been determined in Step 2, an applicant can request a modification of the minimum lot area per unit standard via a concession or a waiver to facilitate construction of the project with the allotted bonus units.

Conclusion

In summary, an SDBL concession may not be used to modify a local minimum density requirement. Moreover, using a concession to reduce the minimum density is antithetical to the intent and purpose of the SDBL.

12 Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (f).
13 Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(2).
14 Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (e).
15 Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (k).
16 Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (o)(6)(A).

5.C.f
Packet Pg. 199
Attachment: Informational Item 5 HCD Technical Assistance Letter (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) Joel Pullen, Community Development Director

Page 5 ends

HCD understands the intricacies of implementing ever-changing state housing laws and is committed to supporting local agencies in the successful implementation of state housing laws, including the SDBL. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact Jessica Evans at [email protected].

Sincerely,

David Zisser
Assistant Deputy Director
Local Government Relations and Accountability

5.C.f
Packet Pg. 200
Attachment: Informational Item 5 HCD Technical Assistance Letter (5562 : LOPES RD MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL) Fremont City Council Meeting: 11/04/25 07:00 PM
3300 Capitol Avenue Div/Dept: Finance Department
Fremont, CA 94538 Category: Presentations

SCHEDULED
Sponsors:

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT (ID # 5556) DOC ID: 5556
Updated: 10/31/2025 9:17 AM by Dina Lewis Page 1
FISCAL YEAR 2024/25 YEAR-END BUDGET REPORT - Informational Report and Presentation of Year-End Results for FY 2024/25
Contact Persons:

Name: David Persselin
Title: Finance Director
Div/Dept: Finance Department
Phone: 510-494-4631
E-Mail: [email protected]

Executive Summary: The FY 2024/25 Year-End Budget Report provides a summary of actual operating results for the General Fund and identifies appropriation actions taken by the City Manager in accordance with Resolution No. 2024-25, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Fremont Approving and Adopting a Budget for the Fiscal Year July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2025 (the “Budget Resolution”).

BACKGROUND: The FY 2024/25 operating budget was adopted by the City Council on June 11, 2024, and year-end estimates for General Fund revenues, expenditures, and ending fund balance were included with the FY 2025/26 Proposed Operating Budget presented to the City Council on May 13, 2025.

The audit of the City’s FY 2024/25 financial statements by an independent certified public accounting firm is underway, and the annual comprehensive financial report, including the audited financial statements, is expected to be available by December 31, 2025. To provide the City Council with more timely information about the year just completed, staff has prepared the following information using unaudited amounts. Staff will report on any material audit adjustments at the time the annual comprehensive financial report is provided to the City Council.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

General Fund Operating Results: General Fund revenues and transfers totaling $263.4 million, are $1.8 million higher than the May estimate of $261.6 million. This is primarily due to higher than anticipated sales tax and interest earnings, partially offset by lower property tax and business tax revenue. The May estimate and actual revenues include the State’s recovery of half of the sales tax it overpaid the City in FY 2022/23, approximately $11.9 million including the impact of reduced revenue from the County pool.

As a separate issue, the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) informed the City in September that it would be recovering $318,468 of FY 2024/25 misallocated sales tax during the first quarter of FY 2025/26. In follow-up discussions with the CDTFA, City staff learned of several other active investigations that will likely result in additional recoveries. Although the CDTFA could not yet provide an estimate of these additional overpayments, a review of FY 2024/25 remittances by City staff indicates the reduction to FY 2025/26 payments could be in the range of $2-3 million.

6.A
Packet Pg. 201
Council Staff Report (ID # 5556) Meeting of November 4, 2025 Updated: 10/31/2025 9:17 AM by Dina Lewis Page 2
General Fund expenditures and transfers out of $280.7 million were $3.2 million higher than the May estimate of $277.5 million. The positive variance is attributable to $4.2 million allocated at year-end to increase the City’s workers’ compensation and general liability reserves and pay related expenses in the Risk Management Fund. These amounts are determined by actuarial reports as of June 30, 2025, which are not available until August or September each year.

Total actual expenditure and encumbrance savings slightly exceeded the $21.2 million estimate included in the final budget, mostly attributable to savings on fuel costs.

Encumbrances, reflecting the portion of the fund balance that has been contractually obligated but not yet spent, total $1 million.

The difference between sources of $264.9 million and uses of $281.7 million results in a net reserve decrease of $16.8 million from the FY 2023/24 ending balances (a $3.1 million increase to the Contingency Reserve and a $19.9 million decrease to the Budget Uncertainty Reserve). From a beginning balance of $24.2 million, the Budget Uncertainty Reserve is estimated to finish the year at $4.3 million, $2.4 million lower than in the May estimate.

The table below provides a summary comparing the May estimate and the estimated actual year-end results.

Appropriation Actions by the City Manager: The Resolution adopted by the City Council to implement the annual operating budget also includes authorization for the City Manager to take additional appropriation actions reflecting the following: (1) carryover of unexpended prior-year encumbrances; (2) cost center revenue increases; (3) grant revenue increases; and (4) increased General Fund revenue directly supported by General Fund

6.A
Packet Pg. 202
Council Staff Report (ID # 5556) Meeting of November 4, 2025 Updated: 10/31/2025 9:17 AM by Dina Lewis Page 3
expenditures. Included in the Resolution are requirements to report these actions to the City Council at year-end.

The amount of increased appropriations for FY 2024/25 due to unexpended FY 2023/24 encumbrances was $40.96 million as detailed below.

Fund Type Encumbrances
Governmental Funds
General Fund $ 1,509,813
Capital Projects 18,168,781
Gas Tax 3,884,021
Environmental Services 1,768,316
Development Cost Center 306,235
Miscellaneous 832,060
Subtotal 26,469,226
Reimbursement Grant Funds 10,600,617
Internal Service and Custodial Funds 3,890,673
Total $ 40,960,516

Additional fee, grant, and developer contribution revenue resulted in increased appropriations by the City Manager as summarized in the following table.

Source Amount Recipient Purpose
Fire Impact Fees $ 170,000 Fire Department New Fire Truck Company Federal Grants 102,650 Human Services Family Resource Center Developer Contributions 52,228 Human Services Warm Springs Age Well Center Total $ 324,878

FISCAL IMPACT: None.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Action on this item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b), as an administrative and/or fiscal activity that does not involve commitment to a specific project that will result in any significant physical impact on the environment.

ATTACHMENTS: None.

RECOMMENDATION: Accept the report and presentation.

6.A
Packet Pg. 203

Fremont City CouncilNovember 4, 2025

Fremont City Council
November 4, 2025