CCCR Comments October 2025 GP Updates 10-27-25 Page 1 of 8
Sent via electronic mail only to: [email protected]
City of Fremont Planning Division
3300 Capitol Avenue
Fremont, CA 94538
Re: October 2025 Draft Amendments to the Land Use and Open Space Element and Conservation Element of the Fremont General Plan
Dear Chair Basrai and Planning Commission Members,
The Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge (CCCR) thanks you for the opportunity to review and provide comments on the Draft Amendments to the Land Use and Open Space, and Conservation Elements of the City of Fremont General Plan. We understand that pursuant to Senate Bill 1425 (SB 1425) the Land Use and Open Space Element of General Plans must be updated to include consideration of “equal access to open space for all residents, climate resilience, and rewilding opportunities. In addition, Assembly Bill 1889 (AB 1889) “requires that the Conservation Element be updated to analyze wildlife connectivity areas, identify wildlife passage features, and consider the impact of development on wildlife habitat and connectivity.”
Commenters:
The Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge has a long history of advocacy for the protection of wetlands and species habitat along the edges of the bay. In the 1960’s our senior members were part of a group of citizens who became alarmed at the degradation of the bay and its wetlands. We joined together, and with the support of Congressman Don Edwards, requested that Congress establish a Wildlife Refuge. The process took seven long years and in 1972, bipartisan legislation was passed to form the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge. Public Law 92-330 was enacted:
“That, for the preservation and enhancement of highly significant wildlife habitat in the area known as south San Francisco Bay in the State of California, for the protection of migratory waterfowl and other wildlife, including species known to be threatened with extinction, and to provide an opportunity for wildlife-oriented recreation and nature study within the open space so preserved...”
In the late 1980’s recognizing that important habitats adjacent to the Bay that were crucial to maintaining the health of the Bay were continuing to be lost to development, we turned to Mr.
Edwards again, and in 1988 (the first year it was submitted ) his legislation to double the size of the Refuge was signed into law. In 1988, Congress passed Public Law 100-556, which increased the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service’s acquisition authority from 23,000 acres to a total of 43,000 acres.
P.O. Box 23957, San Jose, CA 95153 Email: [email protected] www.bayrefuge.org
Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge
CCCR Comments October 2025 GP Updates 10-27-25 Page 2 of 8
Our efforts have led to refuge additions of 1600 acres of Bair Island in Redwood City, 128 acres of Mayhews Landing in Newark, the Munster property in Union City, and lands in the North Bay. We regularly comment on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents such as the Patterson Ranch Project in Fremont.
Our group has also commented on Section 404 and 401 Clean Water Act issues and pressed for the redesign of projects such as the 746-acre Catellus project (Pacific Commons) in Fremont to reduce the adverse impacts of the project on extremely rare vernal pool wetlands and numerous listed and sensitive species. The Section 404 Clean Water Act permit review process for the Pacific Commons project ultimately resulted in the addition of approximately 444 acres of vernal pool complex habitat to the Warm Springs Unit of the Refuge.
Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge (CCCR) has spent decades protecting the Bay’s tidal wetlands and listed and rare species, and has an ongoing interest in wetlands restoration and acquisition. Our organization has taken an active interest in Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, CEQA/NEPA regulations and National Wildlife Refuge System Administrative Act policies and implementation at the local, state and national levels, demonstrating our ongoing commitment to wetland, wildlife and Refuge issues.
We have participated as a stakeholder during the development of the US Fish and Wildlife Service Tidal Marsh Ecosystem Recovery Plan, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) Adapting to Rising Tides and Bay Adapt processes, the San Francisco Estuary Partnership, the San Francisco Bay Joint Venture and the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project.
More recently our members served on the BCDC’s Advisory Committee during the development of BCDC’s Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan (RSAP) Guidance for sea level rise adaptation planning.
Our participation in these processes demonstrates our recognition of the importance of tidal wetlands habitats and the crucial ecosystem services they provide, the threats posed by climate change and more specifically, sea level and groundwater rise, and the challenges that face our region as we work to protect the current and future health of San Francisco Bay and our communities.
Comments Regarding Proposed Amendments to the Land Use and Open Space Element of the Fremont General Plan (GP)
Climate Resilience
Potential missed climate resilience opportunities not captured within the proposed Land Use & Open Space Element Amendments:
Policy 2-2.8: “Constrained Land” of the existing Land Use & Open Space Element states:
“Recognize certain areas as having natural constraints which preclude their safe or environmentally sound development. These constraints are discussed in the Safety and Conservation Elements of the General Plan. The allowable density or intensity of development shall be set to recognize such constraints.
The designations on the General Plan Land Use Map reflect this policy. Hillsides and wetlands are generally designated as Open Space on the Map to recognize ecological, safety, access, CCCR Comments October 2025 GP Updates 10-27-25 Page 3 of 8 and aesthetic concerns. This principle would be carried forward through zoning, and through other City ordinances regulating development near earthquake faults, in flood plains, and in other hazard-prone locations. The Safety and Conservation Elements should be consulted for further guidance on what constitutes “constrained” land.” [emphasis added]
We urge that the City analyze whether some of the lands designated as “constrained” could be ideal locations to enhance or restore habitats that may provide climate change resilience in the form of carbon sequestration (urban forest actions, wetlands enhancement or restoration activities), or by providing increased flood protection, e.g. the recent work conducted by the Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (ACFC&WCD) project adjacent to the Newark Ohlone College Campus to restore a more natural flood plain within Ohlone Creek. Climate change resilience funding for Natural and Nature-Based Solutions exists to implement such projects. We urge the City to examine the lands designated as “constrained” to determine if they might provide overlooked opportunities to increase the City’s climate resilience.
The Climate Resilience Section of the proposed amendments to the Land Use and Open Space Element does not acknowledge the tremendous potential of salt marsh Baylands habitats to sequester carbon:
The section on Climate Resilience references Climate Ready Fremont (2023) and cites:
• NL-C-3.2: Protect, maintain, and enhance the city’s existing urban forest and maintain healthy tree resources within the city
• NL-C-3.3: Encourage planting native, local climate adapted, and drought-tolerant tree species in new development and redevelopment, replacing trees when proposed for removal, and planting trees to shade buildings an reduce energy requirements, and • Action NL-C-3.6: Identify priority areas to expand urban tree and vegetation planting, prioritizing planting in low-canopy corridors as identified by Tree Plotter and in disadvantaged and climate-vulnerable neighborhoods with increased risk of heat and/or air pollution as identified by public-facing tools such as CalEnviroScreen and Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (CEJST)
We fully support the contributions urban forests can provide for improvement of air quality, heat reduction and carbon sequestration; however, we question why NL-2: Increase the carbon sequestration potential of the city’s bayfront and Bayland areas, and NL-4 Expand and protect green infrastructure and biodiversity, have not been included under the Climate Resilience section of the proposed amendments to the Land Use and Open Space Element.
This is another instance of overlooked opportunities to increase the City’s toolkit of climate resilience strategies. It is important to note that salt marsh/tidal wetlands sequester (drawing carbon out of the atmosphere) and storing carbon at rates that are ten times greater than that of tropical forests
1, making protection and restoration of tidal wetlands a crucial component of any
1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries. Fast Facts/Blue Carbon. Blue Carbon webpage. https://coast.noaa.gov/states/fast-facts/blue-carbon.html Accessed October 2025.
CCCR Comments October 2025 GP Updates 10-27-25 Page 4 of 8 carbon storage inventory. Kristen Goodhue, 20242 reports, “Coastal wetlands are champions at storing carbon in their soils – 231 metric tons per hectare [approximately 577 metric tons per acre] on average, according to one estimate.” Other sources report values higher and lower than this, but universally, salt marshes are viewed as being one of the best habitats at drawing carbon down out of the atmosphere and storing it in above-ground vegetation and in the soil. For this reason, the Land Use and Open Space Element should not omit the tremendous ability of Bayland areas to sequester carbon.
Additional Climate Resilience benefits of salt marsh Baylands habitats:
In addition to their carbon sequestration capabilities, salt marshes (Bayland areas) also play a significant role in reducing the impacts of storm surges, acting as barriers that protect communities from flood inundation during high tides. This is why the historically conservative U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is now advocating for the use of Natural and Nature Based Features, “Natural and Nature Based Features are landscape features that are used to provide engineering functions relevant to flood risk management, while producing additional economic, environmental and/or societal benefits…” (https://ewn.erdc.dren.mil/natural-nature-based-features/).
And, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) defines Natural and Nature-Based Solutions (NNBS) as:
“Sustainable planning, design, environmental management, and engineering practices that weave natural features or processes into the built environment to promote adaptation and resilience. Such solutions enlist natural features and processes in efforts to combat climate change, reduce flood risks, improve water quality, protect coastal property, restore and protect wetlands, stabilize shorelines, reduce urban heat, add recreational space and more.
Nature-based solutions offer significant benefits, monetary and otherwise, often at a lower cost that more traditional infrastructure. These benefits include economic growth, green jobs, increased property values, and improvements to public health, including better disease outcomes and reduced injuries.
3”
The importance of salt marsh habitat should be recognized within the Climate Resilience section of the Land Use and Open Space Element.
Land Use and Open Space Element – Rewilding:
This section of the proposed amendments mentions “Baylands” and refers to Land Use Element Policy 2-6.3 “for more information on Baylands.”
2 Goodhue, Kristen. 2024. How Much Can Wetlands Fight Climate Change? A New Carbon Atlas Has The Answers.
Smithsonian magazine. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/blogs/smithsonian-environmental-research-center/2024/03/29/coastal-carbon-atlas/ Accessed October 2025
3 FEMA. “Building Community Resilience with Nature-Based Solutions. A Guide for Local Communities. June 2021. https://www.fema.gov/case-study/fema-updates-building-community-resilience-nature-based-solutions CCCR Comments October 2025 GP Updates 10-27-25 Page 5 of 8 Policy 2-6.3: Baylands states:
“Manage Fremont’s Baylands as permanent open space. The habitat and ecological value of these areas should be conserved and restored to the greatest extent possible. This may include specific land management prescriptions not only for the Baylands but for adjoining upland properties that may impact wetland or bay habitat value. Planning for the Baylands should consider the effects of climate change and sea level rise.
Much of the Baylands acreage is in public ownership and is subject to regulation by agencies such as the US Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Department of Fish and Game, and Army Corps of Engineers. The acreage also includes ponds used for commercial salt production. These areas are generally designated for Resource Conservation on the Land Use Map.”
We certainly support the language of Policy 2-6.3, however the sentence “Planning for the Baylands should consider the effects of climate change and sea level rise” is incredibly vague. “Consider the effects of climate change and sea level rise” fails to convey the significance of the impacts of sea level rise on the Region’s salt marshes. The photos taken below convey the impacts sea level rise will have on salt marshes, in our region if our shoreline communities do not provide space for tidal wetlands to move inland as sea levels continue to rise.
Photos taken at Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge at low tide showing healthy salt marsh along Newark Slough and salt marsh completely submerged during a King Tide (a glance into future conditions as sea levels continue to rise). Photos by Carin High
The extremely beneficial ecosystem services provided by salt marshes will be lost if we do not adequately include in resilience planning, long-term protection of salt marsh habitat as we plan to provide resilience for the Bay Area’s built environment. This means including space for salt marshes to migrate inland by preserving the few remaining undeveloped low-lying areas as spaces for salt marsh migration. Dusterhoff et al
4, in a San Francisco Estuary Institute Report (SFEI) “Sediment for Survival: A Strategy for the Resilience of Bay Wetlands in the Lower San Francisco Estuary,” describe
4 Dusterhoff, S., McKnight, K., Grenier, L., and Kauffman, N. 2021. Sediment for Survival: A Strategy for the Resilience of Bay Wetlands in the Lower San Francisco Estuary. A SFEI Resilient Landscape Program. A product of the Healthy
CCCR Comments October 2025 GP Updates 10-27-25 Page 6 of 8 the significant challenges we must address to maintain tidal wetlands, including the diminishing sediment supply which may hinder the ability of salt marshes to keep pace with rising sea levels through accretion of sediment, and our history of developing up to the edges of the Bay, which reduces the ability of tidal wetlands to migrate inland.
Figure 1 from Buchanan et al
5depicts the inland migration of salt marsh habitat as sea level rises.
The last sentence of the proposed amendments to the Land Use and Open Space Element states,”
“The City will continue to implement Land Use Element Goal 2-6: Open Space to preserve the hill area, maintain the Baylands as permanent open space, and restrict limit development on lands designated as open space to protect natural resources.”
We certainly applaud this goal however, it is inadequate. We will lose salt marsh habitat if we view it as a static footprint on the landscape. As sea levels continue to rise, salt marshes will have to be able to move inland or drown, and we will lose all the many invaluable ecological, economic, societal and resilience benefits this important habitat provides. Protecting salt marsh habitat should not be viewed as something we do to feel good, instead it should be viewed as a necessity for our community.
Comments Regarding the Proposed Amendments to the Conservation Element
General Comments:
In general, our concern with the language of the Conservation Element and the proposed amendments, is that the Hill, Bay Plain and the Baylands are treated as separate units rather than a continuum of habitats. Creeks flowing from the Hill area flow through the Bay Plain, the Baylands and ultimately to San Francisco Bay. Impacts to water quality or sediment transport that occur in the Hill area, will ultimately impact the Bay. Certainly, this is apparent with the Bay, Baylands, and the Alameda Creek Flood Control Channel, where a lot of effort has gone into improving passage for anadromous salmon and steelhead from the Bay to Alameda Creek.
5 Maya K Buchanan et al 2022 Environ. Res. Commun. 4 061001. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2515- 7620/ac6eef
CCCR Comments October 2025 GP Updates 10-27-25 Page 7 of 8
AB 1889 “requires that the Conservation Element be updated to analyze wildlife connectivity areas, identify wildlife passage features, and consider the impact of development on wildlife habitat and connectivity.” [emphasis added] Development should not be narrowly constrained to mean buildings, parking lots, roadways, etc. but should also include trails and other recreational features, utility lines, and other infrastructure that can fragment habitat and present barriers (physical and behavioral) to wildlife. CCCR recently commented on a proposed Bay Trail segment through the fragile Warm Springs Vernal Pool Unit of the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) that could introduce disturbance to the physical environment, to plant and wildlife life history cycles, and introduce non-native invasive and nuisance or predatory species, etc. A second proposed project, Power the South Bay, would have similar impacts with the addition of potential changes to the hydrologic regime of the vernal pool complex due to proposed trenching of utility lines through the vernal pool complex.
Wildlife Passage and Connectivity Features:
The proposed wildlife passage amendments to the Conservation Element are limited to addressing features in more terrestrial settings, but neglect to consider the connection through the three described physical areas, “The Baylands, Bay Plain (flatlands), and hill area”, provided by creek corridors. Implementation 7-1.1.A: Protect Riparian and Wetland Areas, mentions preserving and minimizing impacts to these habitat types, but fails to describe the value of restoring riparian habitat and corridors to the bay. Sediment for Survival mentioned earlier describes reconnecting creeks to salt marshes as one of the strategies to improve salt marsh resilience as sea levels continue to rise. (Salt marshes are excellent at capturing sediment, and if sufficient sediment supplies exist, salt marsh habitat can grow vertically to keep pace with sea level rise.)
Figure 1 A from Buchanan et al depicts vertical growth of salt marsh habitat with sufficient sediment supply.
Creeks also provide corridors of connectivity for wildlife traveling through the three physical areas.
Connectivity of habitats is important for plants and wildlife within the Baylands, and will become even more important as sea levels rise and habitats must move inland. If physical barriers exist, as described above, Baylands habitats and the species they support are at risk of drowning.
CCCR Comments October 2025 GP Updates 10-27-25 Page 8 of 8 Remediating and Restoring Habitat:
We applaud the proposed Urban Forest amendment and the discussion of projects undertaken by Alameda County Flood Control; however, the proposed amendment is once again silent regarding exploring opportunities to remediate and restore habitat within the Baylands. We recognize that in large part Baylands within the city boundaries are privately owned or public lands (Refuge lands), however, that does not prohibit the City from seeking partnerships to restore habitat, particularly where the action could help to meet conservation or resilience goals. We encourage the City to include language regarding seeking opportunities to remediate and restore Baylands habitats as well because of all the ecological, economic, societal and resilience benefits provided by these habitats.
Conclusion:
We express our thanks for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed Land Use and Open Space and Conservation Element amendments. We urge the City to incorporate language recognizing the Climate Resilience opportunities provided by Baylands habitats. Additionally, we urge the City to make sure the connectivity that exists between the three physical units described in the General Plan and the Bay and the many ecological, economic, societal, and resilience benefits provided by the Baylands unit habitats are described in more detail in the Conservation Element.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. We request that we be kept informed of any future opportunities to review and provide comments on the proposed amendments.
Respectfully submitted,
Carin High
CCCR, Co-Chair