Planning Commission - Special Meeting

All right. I'd like to call the February 13 planning commissioner special meeting and order. First, like salute to the flag. I would like to invite vice chair Bass Rey to lead. Thank you.

Secretary Polley, can you do the roll call, please?

Good evening, chair. I'm gonna introduce staff who are participating tonight. First, we have recording clerk Kim Salazar joining us, and she'll be handling the oral communications and the, voting and such tonight. Senior deputy city attorney Heather Lee to my left, providing support from the city attorney's office. I'm Joel Polin, Planning Commission secretary. Recording clerk will recognize speakers during oral communication opportunities. Email comments submitted to the clerk or staff by today's deadline have been provided to the commission prior to the meeting. So we're gonna call the roll. When you hear your name, please respond. Chairperson Zhang.

I'm here.

Vice chair, Bosrai. Here. Commissioners Craig. Commissioner Ezzi. Here. Commissioner Ramamurthy.

Here.

Commissioner Yee. Here. And commissioner Liu. Here. Alright. Chair, we have all seven commissioners present today, which is quorum and no absences. Thank

you. Next item, let's read this through the the the the minutes of law from last meeting. I believe commissioner have been re read it. Can I have a motion to approve it?

Okay.

I have a motion from commissioner Robert Marcy. Can I have a second? Second. Second from commissioner Lee. Let's vote.

Alright. That the the motion passed unanimously. I'll give it to planning manager Poland for recognition of planning commissioner Rina Yell.

So tonight before we get into our items, we have two items that is a recognition of service for Rena Rao, who, was a commissioner here, recently, for six years on the commission. And then we have the election of officers to follow. And so I'm gonna come down to the, to the podium with the service recognition now. Doesn't reach quite far enough. Krishna Rao joined us in December 2018 and served with us until 10/03/2024.

Commissioner Rao served during a time of a lot of change on the on the commission where we've converted to a lot of newer state laws that apply to our development projects, it was quite a time of adjustment. And she was one of the many who guided us through that time period and I wanna thank her for her contribution to the city during these years. I've also had this signed by all of the sitting planning commissioners as well, so she can keep this as a memento of her service with you. And I wanna give the commissioners an opportunity after Ms. Rouse has a few words to comment on her service to the Commission over these years. You.

I'll just be short and sweet. Thank you for your kind words, Joe. I planning secretary Joe. It has been a privilege to serve on the planning commission. I have been constantly impressed by the dedication of those who work behind the scenes to help our city grow thoughtfully.

I've learned so much from my fellow commissioners, our excellent staff, and our engaged citizens. I'm proud of what we have accomplished together. Thank you to the commissioners for your collaboration and friendship and our planning staff for your invaluable support. I especially appreciate your patience during the past two years while I cared for my mom during her battle with cancer and after her passing. I'll always be grateful for this opportunity to serve.

And while my service has ended, my commitment to our community continues. Thanks to former mayor Lily May who appointed me to serve on the commission. Special thanks to commissioner Shovana, Ramamurti, and planning secretary Joe Pullen for arranging this recognition. Your thoughtfulness in putting this together means a lot to me. Thank you all.

Thank you for your service.

Welcome.

Actually, I would like to invite a commissioner to have a word for Commissioner Yao, please. Commissioner Ramamarthy?

Okay. I want to thank Commissioner former Commissioner Rina Rao for her exemplary service to the city and to the community. Even though she has served in the commission for six years, she has been serving for many, many decades Fremont's the city of Fremont and its people. We are extremely grateful for the service you do and the energy you bring and your brilliance and in guiding everyone

in

the city on various issues, just not in Planning Commission. We really thank you from the bottom of our heart, and we wish you the best in you continuing your service and in other areas.

Thank you so much. Anyone

wants to say anything?

Commissioner Vice Chair Jasmine McBrathery.

Former Commissioner Rao.

No. Okay.

Alright. Sorry about that. Former Commissioner Rao, was a pleasure serving with you alongside you for the last few years. I learned a lot from you and your thoughtful questions while we were up here on the dais. So wish you all the best and thank you for your leadership for all these years.

Thank you, Commissioner.

All right. Again, thank you very much for your service. It's six years. It's a pretty long time. There's a lot of dedication and time spending on this. I believe we'll see you around. I mean, community still Thank need

you. This was also during COVID, so we did a lot of Yeah. Yeah. At home from home.

Three years together. We worked together.

Thank you.

Oh, you're not I'm not done. You know I have You to say know I have to say something. Yeah. Because for those that don't know, that's in the audience, Rina and I happen to be neighbors. So I've known Rina and her husband for many years.

Mhmm.

We both were actually appointed to the Spinal Commission together on the same exact day, you know, from former Mayor May. So I know that she and her husband are community leaders. They do lots of work and not only just for her as planning commission, but I know work with FIA and FOG. With the Indian community not only just here but also over there in Sunnyvale as well. So you you kinda go throughout the I think it's Sunnyvale. Right?

Cupertino. Pardon me? Cupertino.

Oh Cupertino. Well, kinda close I guess. But you know throughout the South Bay and you know I and I think you have, you and your husband have put a footprint throughout the whole Silicon Valley area, you know, being able to share so much of your time and effort and your family for all of us to make this place a better place for us to live. And thank you for all your service.

Thank you so much.

Mhmm. Alright. Thank you very much. Okay. I'll give it to secretary Pollard, please.

Yes. Thank you, chair. So election of officers happens with the commission at first meeting that we hold every calendar year. And the staff role in this is just to give you information, and then the commission is able to make decisions as they see fit. Ordinarily, the commission chooses to go by seniority of the commissioners that are on staff.

From time to time, that's that's not been the case. But most often, seniority is the is the way they go. Of the commissioners that have not served as chair, the that next by our sort of roster seniority would be vice chair, Bas Rai, to succeed to the chair and for commissioner Ramamurthy to succeed to the vice chair. I give that information just as guidance of tradition, and it's up to the commission to discuss amongst themselves and make recommendations and decide whether you wanna accept. And after that, we're gonna take a short resource recess, reshuffle the seats, and continue the meeting.

Alright. Thank you. Yeah. Thank thank you for the guidance. In general, I I I appreciate vice chair Bassaray for helping this for the past few years and some hoping me host a meeting.

I believe that you will be an excellent chairperson for the next round for this year, actually. So on the other hand, I think this commission is relatively young. We have two newly appointed commissioner, and we Commissioner Ron Rossi and I, probably just six months away. I mean, it's quite new in this field. So it's quite challenging.

So I believe nobody and I believe this is going to be a to have some kind of a better a more senior person can help us kind of lifting this commissioner in this year, setting a better example than me. So I would like to ask volunteers for the vice chair position if if anyone want to want to jump in. Can I see?

I volunteer myself for the vice chair position.

Alright. That sounds great. So any if no it seems to be have two candidates at this point. Any if no objections, can we have a motion to for the nominations, make nominations or anything you want to weigh in here?

Please raise your hand. Commissioner Yi, please. Yes, I guess I'll weigh You know, you you are correct. We we have a relatively young planning commission here in terms of when they were originally appointed. I guess I'm actually the senior person that's here in more ways than one.

And, you know, I just I just wanna make sure to to put in the nomination for both, you know, vice chair, Bosrai for chair and then the same because I I just quickly asked, Commissioner Ramamurthy if she want if she's ready and I could see she's jumping for this right now. So I also wanna put in that nomination for her to be the Vice Chair as well. So I I put in I put in the request for that.

Right. Then can I have a motion? Oh, actually,

commissioner Yeah. I made the motion to to go with that.

Commissioner Craig, please.

Yeah. I can second it.

Alright. That's the nomination is for commissioner Basaray for chair and commissioner Ramam Massey for vice chair. Let's vote. Alright. The password unanimously.

And during the recess, our IT and clerk will be working hard to reassign your little name tags and to reset the system for the voting.

Alright. Let's have a five minutes recess. Thank you. Alright. Congratulations.

Thank you. Alright. If everybody could get seated, we'll get started. Alright. I appreciate everybody's patience with me for I guess it's my second meeting running it.

So hopefully, this time it's a little bit smoother. So we will start with on the agenda disclosures. So we'll start with commissioner Liu.

Yes. I drove past all four sites and but I did not speak with anyone.

Alright. Commissioner Yi?

Yeah. I also went to all four sites. The applicant for the Irvington Arches reached out to me, so I spoke to that applicant. And then a resident reached out to me to speak with me with the Arden Wood Paseo appeal project. And then I also read all the emails that were sent to us from the public.

Commissioner Zhang. I

dropped by the the Li Bao Li Town Hall last from last last meeting and this meeting as well. I went to the Arlington side and spoke to with couple parents from the preschool. Also, the the the sales clerk from the gas station. I drive around the Ironwood, which is kinda close to my home as well. Yeah. That's it. Thank you.

Commissioner Yezzi?

Yeah. I've had a chance to drive by all four of the sites. I haven't had any conversations with anybody regarding any of the projects and did get a chance to review all of the incoming public comment that's been provided by the commission staff.

Commissioner Craig?

I drove by all four sites and then I talked to the applicant from Irvington Arches and read all the emails.

Commissioner Ramamurti.

I drove by all the four sites but I did not get an opportunity to talk with anyone.

Okay. Thank you. And I drove by all four sites and read all incoming emails regarding from public comment. And so that's where mine are. So I guess we'll go to the next item, which is the consent calendar.

And we have no items on consent tonight, we can go directly to, oral communications.

Alright. Do we have any oral communications?

No, chair. We have no speakers.

Okay. So, I guess we can go to the next public hearing items, item number one, the Sani Residence.

Good evening, chair. So, I'll read the title for item one, and the planner is here for the project. So item one is the Sani residence at 71 Montclair Drive. This is to consider a discretionary design review for a new approximately 8,800 square foot single family res, dwelling, including a 998 square foot attached ADU on a 1.8 acre lot located in the Mission San Jose community plan area, and then consider a finding that no further environmental review is required pursuant to exemptions from CEQA per fifteen three zero three fifteen one eighty three. The project planner is here tonight, Mark Cleveland, is handling this item in James Willis stead, and he has a brief presentation for the item.

After this, the applicant will have ten minutes for their presentation followed by public comment on the item, if any, and then a five minute rebuttal by the applicant, if necessary. With that, when you're ready, chair, the Mark's ready to present.

Let's proceed.

Good evening, commissioners. The project before the Planning Commission this evening is to consider discretionary design review for a proposed 8,800 square foot home with an attached ADU at 71 Montclair Drive. Tonight's presentation will include a project background introduction, site design, architectural design, landscape, and staff recommendation. The proposed project is located on a 1.79 acre lot zoned planned district P96-twelve. The general plan land use designation is residential hillside 2.3 or 8.7 dwelling units per acre.

A home that was previously on the site experienced a fire and was demolished in 02/2006. The lot was part of a lot split into two lots in 2019.

We can't hear you.

Oh, really? I can hear me. Sorry, I'm getting massive feedback, but apparently you guys can't hear me. Hopefully that's better. The proposed project is on the the western lot created by a lot split.

The pro proposed home would be located towards the rear of the existing lot to allow access to be taken via an easement across the adjacent lot created by the recent lot split. There's a creek which travels through the project site, and biological studies were prepared for the project have determined that the proposed location of the home would have less than significant impact on the sensitive habitat or wild wildlife. The site contains several deep slopes. The location of the home was selected to avoid slopes in excess of 30% as required by the P-ninety six-twelve zoning conditions of approval. The access driveway would come from Montclair Terrace and would be able to serve both the proposed project and future development on the adjacent Lot 13.

The fire department has reviewed the driveway for conformance with slope, curve, and turnaround requirements. The home conforms to the applicable objective standards contained in the P-nine 612 conditions of approval, as well as applicable objective standards such as maximum lot coverage. As a residential development, the project is only subject to applicable objective standards under state law. The proposed home features a terrace design to conform to the slope. Due to the terrace design stepping with the hillside, the home contains many floors of habitable and non habitable space.

Some levels would be recessed into the hillside to reduce the apparent size of the structure, and attached ADU would occupy the topmost level of the home, accessed by exterior stairs and an elevator. The ADU does not count towards the maximum Second Floor area. When excluding the ADU, the home conforms to the maximum Second Floor area, which of 50 of the First Floor area and or 1,500 square feet, whatever is more restrictive. A condition of approval would require the plans submitted for a building permit to exclude the ADU from the maximum floor area calculation shown on the plan. Several rooftop decks would provide exterior living space without further impacting the sensitive habitat around the building and site.

The proposed home would feature high quality exterior materials, which are appropriate for construction in the potentially fire prone wildlife urban interface area. The proposed standing seam metal roof stucco exterior walls with fire rated the project proposes standing seam roof stucco exterior walls with fire rated simulated wood siding accents. The railings around the rooftop terrace would be wrought iron and the windows would have a wood cladding. The project site is heavily forested with 100 trees identified on the arborist report prepared for this project. 10 trees are proposed to be removed due to conflicts with proposed development or due to poor health.

Five of the 10 trees proposed for removal were identified as being dead or in poor health. The trees near the creek will remain on-site. The landscape plan proposes to plant 33 new trees, including 23 coast live oaks and 10 western redbuds. In addition to the tree plantings, extensive plantings consisting of shrubs and ground cover planted along the driveway and around the perimeter of building site. The remainder of the site will remain in the natural state with existing native and non native plants and trees.

Staff recommends that Planning Commission find project exempt for the California Environmental Quality Act for the reasons enumerated in the staff report. Staff recommends the Planning Commission make the necessary findings to approve the requested discretionary design review as depicted in the project plans attached to Exhibit A and subject to conditions of approval contained in Exhibit B. Thank you for your time tonight.

Thank you. I'm going to open it up now for questions from any commissioners. Alright. Commissioner Yee.

Oh, thank you chair. This this particular project locations in a wild land area. Correct?

The wild land

area area area. Yeah. Because I I'm guess well, the reason why I'm asking this question is making sure that I was reading that the windows have to be tempered. Right?

Let me clarify. So this site is within the wildland urban interface and the very high fire hazard severity zone as mapped by the city of Fremont. The state's actually doesn't jive with us in this area, but for the fire code purposes, our standards do apply. That that includes tempered windows. That includes things like boxed, you know, eaves, things that prevent generally embers from entering the structure like you saw in a lot of the recent fires down south.

Yeah. The reason why I asked because I know the applicant is sitting out there. My neighbor, who inadvertently put in the wrong type of windows had to pull them all out and put in the tempered glass. So I just wanted to clarify to make sure whoever puts in those those windows, make sure that they're tempered glass or you're gonna pay the price and have to pull them all out and put the right ones in. Yeah. Yeah. I know. See, my planning secretary goes, yep. Alright. Thank you.

Anybody else have any other questions? Alright. I think we can open it to the applicant for ten minutes. Did you have a question?

Hello. Okay.

Great. Thanks. Good evening, commissioners. Thank you very much. My name is Vikas Sani. I represent the Sani family. We are the owners of Montclair. I'm sorry. We my name is Vikas Sani. We are the owners of Montclair Drive, and this is Tony Mero. He's our architect.

Good evening, planning commission members. Vikas Sani and his family have been my clients for the past ten years. It's not the first project I designed for them, and they're very familiar with the codes, the fire codes, and so forth. I work in Fremont. My office is, like, one block from the building department, and I've designed about 800 homes in the Bay Area, more than half in Fremont.

And the largest home in Fremont was one of my designs, about 30,000 square feet. I'm very familiar with the codes in Fremont, and I'm very thankful to every member of of the city working with me on this project and every project. And James Willis did a great job working with us on this project. Mark, I've known him quite well. Joe Pullen, I know him quite well regarding every job I work with.

And to answer your question, every job I do is one hour rate construction, including the windows. I'm very familiar with this. But, yes, I've heard of window companies bidding jobs that are are from outside the Bay Area and provide wrong windows. Every job has aluminum windows in this case. So they're good up to 1,200 degree temperature based on the LA fires and so forth, which my cousin lost his home, lost everything. So we're very familiar with that stuff and very cautious about every detail. And fire has approved already the plans. I already called tempered glass on the windows. So that's not an issue. Most of my designs, as you know, Fremont has nothing but hillside lots in the custom mission area, and they're all on hillsides, steep hillsides.

And I've designed up to 30% slope hillsides. One of my project had 40 feet of drop under the house. And, yeah, it's tough to make a house that steep look good, and I've done it. And this house is similar but smaller scale, And we have only 25 foot drop under the house. I do terrace the home into the hillside.

This this will add stability to the home. It will add stability to the hillside as well. We work with several consultants, as Mark mentioned, from biological reports to soil report to geological reports and went through the peer review, making sure everything complies, the driver material and the drainage on the driveway. So nothing is gonna impact the site to be further weak. I know any creek has some settlement issues, but we addressed all these issues.

And if anything, once the house is built, will be even stronger than what it is currently. Because currently, it's decaying on its own. So there'll be re vegetation, as Mark mentioned, tons of trees and so forth. The site is a very low profile site because the Dan Hill Flag lot below Montclair Terrace, that's where the access is from. Originally, the access was from Montclair Court down below, which would have had to cross the creek to access the site.

But when the house burnt, that original Hawaiian house burnt and stuff, which I knew the owner after that house actually, he's another owner now right now. But I terraced the house into the hillside, very low profile home, no massive roofs, no gaudy 30 story 30 foot tall entries, very low profile home. Yet it is not visible from the street between the trees that you have on there and just low profile being way below the street. So it has low impact on the neighborhood. And I've done six homes already in that subdivision.

And, basically, it would be a nice addition and nice value for the whole neighborhood to add this home. So if you have any questions for me, I would love to answer the questions.

Commissioner Zhang, do you have a question?

I had a question about the building for the staff before. I I realized this building has a basement, First Floor and Second Floor. That's not quite common in the sense why they call why don't we call it First Floor, Second Floor, or Third Floor?

I can answer that.

Well, I

I can start. Mark might have more specific information. The city's ordinance limits to two habitable floors. If there is a subterranean floor that's not habitable by a building code, then those don't count as the total number of stories. Within that framework, there are a lot of different things that happen in Hillside that are unique, but that's the general answer. Mark might be able to get more specific if you if you'd like.

Yeah. As stated, pretty much what Joel said, if you look throughout the plans the way it's terraced, anywhere that you have, it'll have, you know, First Floor, Second Floor, and if you see a floor area below that, it'll be below the habitable space limit, and as you terrace up, at no point do you have a situation where you have three habitable floors intersecting.

Misatochomy is it can intentionally avoid that conflict with the the code, is it?

It was done, I mean, it's a difficult site where you're working with the, you know, different elevations, so it was done kinda to keep the house lower profile in the hills, abide by all the various rules that we have in this plan district, as well as the hillside ordinance. James has worked on quite a few homes in the hillside, so he's very familiar with the rules and kind of getting it to an area where it'll abide by the rules, because we have certain, you know, sites and grading rules that we have to abide by in the side.

It does meet the standard, the code standard. Additionally, there are quite a few houses in the hills that are that follow the same framework from the eighties to today. So it's not a departure from the norm.

Got it. Thank you.

May I add to that? Basically, way the code reads in layman's term is the main living floor, which is the living room, kitchen, family room area, and so forth, is the grand level. And we have walkout basements, not full basements, except some storage areas that go into almost full basements. So the main level of the garage entry and living kitchen area is the main floor. So where we have the walkout basement on the left side of the plan, which we call basement level, is just a walkout basement. It's not considered as the main floor. And you work your way up.

Alright. Thank you. You're welcome.

I think we have another question from commissioner

Yes. Thank you, chair. How how much of a defensible space is gonna be surrounding this this property? You know, how many feet?

To planting or to neighboring properties?

To, I guess, you know, from the house to, you know, you know, when you usually try to have a defensible space that's, you know, fairly clear. Yeah. Yeah. So I'm just wondering, is it, like, 20 feet, 30 feet?

No. That subdivision has a 30 foot wide band. Okay. But typically, the code now is saying no trees within 10 feet to a house.

Okay. Great.

So if the plan that's kind of a newer code. Mark would probably know when that code was issued. We can adjust the landscape plan accordingly, if anything.

Okay. And then I guess my last question is, I see that the ADU is at the Top Floor, and I'm just wondering, you know, the thought process of why it says on the Top Floor. I have an ADU. I usually I I'm used to seeing it kinda on the Ground Floor somewhere.

Well, this is the history of this project where we started seven years ago in doing lot line adjustment

Right.

And to avoid coming in from the lower lot. And while designing this home we had to submit the design in the beginning when we did lot line adjustment. Right. The design was different and was only three levels and got changed and design from exterior to interior to everything because code changes. When code changes, we could not have more than 50% on the Second Floor for the slot, more than 1,500 square feet. We had to do some changes and we had to do the ADU up on the Top Floor.

Okay.

And we were here I was here personally and the owner was here personally during the city council hearing when we tried to mention I we understand the limits of Second Floor, but typically it does not relate to lot size. It only relates to the zoning. Because I got five acre lots and 10 acre lots. We can't have more than 1,500 square feet on the Second Floor, which hurts the clients. But so we had to do an ADU on the Top Floor.

I see. Okay. And you said this had been a seven year journey.

Yes. With three designs.

Wow. Okay.

Alright. We did a u shaped design with a courtyard in the middle to give privacy to the neighbors where they don't see the garage doors. We hid all the driveways and so forth. We respect all the neighbors. I know many of the neighbors, actually. The one right next door, I did his house as well. I know the guy right next door on the other side as well, and so forth. So I respect all the neighbors for privacy.

Alright. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Alright, any other questions from any commissioners? Alright, I think we can now open this for public comment.

Chair we have no one requesting to speak for this item.

Okay, At that point, can close public comment. Alright, we can close the public hearing. Don't think we need a rebuttal. Any other questions from any commissioners or staff? Right. Do we wanna have any deliberation? Are there any comments from any commissioners?

So I did request to speak. I have a question. So this is a question for the staff. I think I vaguely remember that there are also numbers such as a thousand square feet maximum space for the Second Floor of 50% of the First Floor. Is it the number for the smaller lot size or or maybe I just heard it wrong or remembered it wrong?

So it's the the in this instance, it was since it's a p district, the way our zoning code works, we default to the most like zoning district. In this case, I believe it was the R 110, which would be a maximum of 1,500 square feet or 50%, whichever is more restrictive.

What you're recalling, Commissioner Liu, is that the most common zoning in Fremont is R16, and R16 has that 1,000 square foot limit. But these as you go up in the R16, R18, R110, etc, limit increases based on the code standards that the city council imposed back in February. So our code has been consistent since then in those gradations. And in the Flatlands and other zoning districts in Fremont, it's also the case that someone can do an ADU on the Top Floor because ADUs are are accepted from state law by needing to comply with maximum sizes for a Second Floor in the city of Fremont.

So what's the subdivision size breakdown beyond which you can do 1,500 square feet on the Second Floor?

Is it 8,000 or 10,000 square feet? So it goes Yep. So it goes all the way up to, you know, half acre, one acre, and plus lots. You know, R 16 would be the lowest. I think R 140 is typically the largest, which is like a one acre subdivision. This one's about the third up of five or six.

So 1,500 for the Second Floor is the largest Second Floor you can do if you don't have an ADU anywhere in Fremont. I don't have

the code in front of me. And to be honest, we don't use the R 120 and R 140 very often. I'm not sure what those are. Okay. We could look it up if you if you'd like. But it's it's larger.

Thank you.

Alright. Commissioner Ezzi.

Sorry, I'm off mute now. Thank you so much for the presentation. I'm not sure if this is appropriate for Mark or for the applicants, but I just noticed in the agenda packet there's a letter from an individual who's raising some concerns about the cracks in the hillside and the noise and the various other things. And so I'm just curious if the applicant or the planning staff wants to speak to that a little bit. It'd just be good to kinda hear your perspective.

I read that letter actually. And if you wanna pursue that as a statement, nobody can build in Fremont or anywhere else in the world. There has been lots of construction in Fremont. It's a very booming city across the Bay Area. There are noise ordinances. There are lots of requirements and codes that the contractor has to comply with to ensure everybody is on on the safe side.

The

this neighbor he mentioned, he's been there for thirty five years. Well, within thirty five years, the whole Montclair subdivision was built out. And we never heard such a comment before. But as far as stability of the soil, which I mentioned earlier, yes, the creek has some settlement issues, but that's where we are mitigating that issue. And the peer reviewer by the of the geologist report approved what we're doing to ensure that the creek is gonna be safe versus left abandoned.

So in regarding regarding to that, it's gonna be good. Habitat will be enhanced, re vegetated because it was like a lush garden when the Hawaiian house was built over there, but then it fell apart as a lot became vacant. And kids used to party in that house and drink and whatever, and that's why the house burnt. But now it's gonna be a much safer place to be and safer for the neighborhoods. It's fenced in, so nobody can go in right now.

But it will be revisited to be safer. But with the foundation that we do nowadays, piers and all stuff, it's embedded into the hillside. It's not one of those cliffhangers where the house just hangs off the cliff. And thanks to the good building codes in Fremont where you can't have a crawl space more than five feet, which we don't, we cut into the hillside, make it very stable. Regarding the last comment that he's got, that's really personal.

I cannot respond to that anguish or whatever mental issues and stuff having a house built next door. There is gonna be some noise, but during business hours. But that neighbor is about 300 feet away across the creek, which I don't think he can even hear any noise. Regarding the pier drilling, if you're familiar with how piers are drilled, it's around Thinghy that goes into the ground, not pounding. Commercial buildings, they have precast piers that they put and keep pounding and pounding and pounding, so they go into the ground about 40 feet deep. I've done commercial for six years. I know how that goes. But residential piers are different. It's just a rig that goes round and round and pulls the dirt out. There is no pounding on these piers.

The only pounding is some nails into the walls, which you can't hear 10 feet away, which is not gonna be an issue. So I really respect the neighbors' concerns, but I don't think there should be any concerns.

I can expand a little bit in that. Yeah. The biologist report was done looking at, you know, setback to the creek and effects on the habitat, and it was found based on their design, they'd be in compliance, and they would have, you know, minimal to no effect on the vegetation in the creek in the area. They also have to go through a soils report, which would go over the stability of the soils during their construction. They also would be subject to our normal construction hours, so if there is issues with noise and vibration, they would still be subject to all those standards that we already have in place.

Right. And the way that SOLAS report works, just for and this is for any project, just for we have a new commission we talked about earlier in the meeting, and I think it's good to understand. So, what happens with the geotechnical is, when they bring in their project, they do the first geotechnical analysis. They hire that person. When they bring it to the city, the city has a person on call that we have them pay for that provides recommendations to the city on their report.

So that person evaluates peer reviews and says, you know what? We want you to go back and check this. And then that process happens enough times until that consultant that's hired on behalf of the city is comfortable with the soils report provided by the applicant. So that process is, policed by the city by a qualified consultant.

And when we have construction drawings, we'll be submitting complete construction drawings with foundation plans and everything for the sole engineer sort of for the city to review, and it might go back to the peer review again. But we address every comment on the peer review. And as mentioned earlier, even the driveway material had to be addressed properly, and the drainage had to be addressed properly. And we have a 100 foot setback from the creek, which we complied with.

Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Commissioner Zheng?

Oh, thank you, chair. Yeah. I I think this proposed building occupied a pretty small percent of the land, and it's kinda low profile. It's gonna thank you for keeping most of the trees. So I have no problem with that. So I would I would make motion to approve this approve staff recommendations Commissioner subject to condition.

I'm sorry. Commissioner Liu?

I was going to ask about, I think, the history. In the past, it was actually subdivided into 15. Lots of was going to be a lot more homes built. I just wanted to know a little bit more about that story, background story.

The subdivision Montclair was designed in 1996, I believe it was, the mid nineties. And that this property was actually the what what Tony mentioned as the Hawaiian house, some people call the Tiki House, was pretty well known as a landmark before this project got subdivided around it. They subdivided sort of the bottom portion and then this top portion in two phases, and then created some sort of guidelines for how they would develop it. And those houses were built. Some of them is more track type and and more at the top is custom houses over the years.

And so this is after that house burnt, that was the original house that was subdivided around. This lot remained. And so they just moved a lot line and then put this house plan in for that remaining lot. So that's the that's the trajectory from original to now.

So as a result, there will be no more homes built after this. Right?

I believe there's still a lot on the Monteclair side. Is that right?

Yep. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you.

Alright. Commissioner Ezzy?

No. I was just gonna second the motion when it's appropriate, so I'm happy to defer.

Unless there's any any other comments? We have a motion and a second. Think we're ready for a vote alright and this item passes unanimously. So I think

Next item.

Is that it?

No. Next item.

Okay. So we can move to the next item. Mhmm. So we'll

move to item Oh, I apologize. I missed my normal statement. Yes. I was so busy. Yeah.

Yeah. I was wondering.

Yeah. So this item is final. This action of the planning commission is final unless appealed within ten calendar days. Thank you.

Okay. Good. I thought I was losing it.

See, now Mark can leave.

New chair is right, and I I'm, I'm unintentionally, know, testing

her. Yeah. Alright. We're gonna go to item number two on the agenda.

Oh, chair Rosway? I've for the next item, since I had a previous business relationship with the applicants, I'm gonna recuse myself.

Okay. K. Alright. So item number two, the Li Bao Lee townhomes.

Alright, chair. I'll stay on my toes for the rest of the meeting here. Li Bao Lee townhomes is at four four six seven Central Avenue. This is to consider a discretionary design review, a vesting tentative track map number eight six nine two, modification of zoning standards, tree removal, and a private street to construct 10 for sale attached townhouse units across two buildings on an approximately point four five acre site at 4467 Central Avenue in the Centerville community plan area. And to consider a finding that no further environmental review is required pursuant to the exemptions from CEQA under CEQA section fifteen three three two, fifteen one eight three, and then one six two and one six three.

The project planner, Kevin Lee, is here with the presentation as, and just as before. After this, applicant gets ten minutes if needed, and then public comment and a five minute rebuttal if needed. I do wanna call your attention before Kevin starts to a letter we received today from CalHDF commenting on the project with respect to

the

Housing Accountability Act which Kevin may also cover during his presentation. Thank you.

Thank you, Joel. Thank you to the Planning Commission. My name is Kevin. I'm the project planner for the Lee Bell Lee Townhomes project over at 4467 Central Avenue. As was mentioned before, this project is for 10 attached townhomes in the Centerville community plan area. These 10 townhomes will be distributed across two three story buildings each containing five units each. There would be an internal private street that would bisect the lot and that would stem off of the existing 20 foot access way into the property. And along with this development, there will be site improvements and landscaping landscaping as as well. Well. The existing conditions of the site is, there is one existing single family home.

The lot itself is point four five acres and is surrounded by other multifamily development, which is consistent with the area's general plan designation of medium residential and also the zoning, is R 323, which is a multifamily zoning district. Tonight, the planning commission is asked to consider approving the following entitlements, a discretionary design review permit, investing tentative track map number 8692, a modification of zoning standards to reduce the on-site guest parking requirements, which I will go through in a in a later slide. The approval of a private street and tree removal of four existing trees to facilitate the development of this project. The existing house is to be is proposed to be demolished and again, two identical buildings containing five units each totaling to approximately 21,500 square feet of residential space as proposed on-site. There would be a new 20 foot access way for vehicular traffic and also for emergency vehicle access that would bisect the lot straight down the middle.

And other improvements include guest parking spaces at the south side, various landscaping at the north and southeast of the site, and a new sidewalk that would go from the public right of way and into the back of the lot. Each of the units are four bedrooms and three and a half bathrooms. They all come with a two car garage and and front yard patios. The units on the Central Avenue frontage will have their patios facing the street to improve the streetscape landscape, the aesthetic of it. There are balconies located on the Third Floor.

And as mentioned before and in compliance with our objective design standards, the units will be facing Central Avenue to improve the street frontage. The design's architectural style uses a mix of cement plaster and a vertical cement board as shown on these on these on this slide right here. The buildings utilize a neutral paint and wood trellises and a variety of setbacks to create different massing elements to create a very varied massing building as to break up the monotony of having three story townhomes. The specific details are analyzed in the staff report, but in summary, staff in the staff report analyzes the design and finds that the project substantially complies with the objective design standards as outlined in the city's multi time design guidelines in accordance with state law. The project also complies with the general plans policies and goals as it relates to inflow development and multifamily housing meeting the density range envisioned for the site at 21.7 dwelling units per acre.

The project is also consistent with the underlying zoning requirements such as setbacks, building height, and private open space allotment. The applicant is requesting to have one of its five required guest parking spaces to be located on the street of Central Avenue. The municipal code allows the planning commission to modify guest parking requirements when there is sufficient on street parking. Staff has found that the project's curb length can accommodate four twenty two and a half parallel parking spaces alongside the project's frontage on Central Avenue and recommends that the planning commission approve the applicant's request to modify the guest parking requirements. This project is also subject to the housing accountability act, which requires the city to approve a housing project if it meets all objective general plan, zoning, design, and subdivision standards.

It also requires a commission to make findings that the project would have specific adverse impacts on public health and safety and that note there are no feasible mitigation in order to deny the project. Per staff's analysis, the project is compliant with set standards and there is no evidence of unavoidable impacts that would necessitate that would necessitate its disapproval. In addition, the project qualifies for an exemption from CEQA per CEQA guidelines one five three three two as an infill development project as analyzed in detail in the staff report. In conclusion, staff recommends that the planning commission find the project exempt from CEQA under CEQA guidelines one five three three two for infill development projects. Find that the project is in conformance with the city's general plan.

Find that there is sufficient on street parking alongside Central Avenue to support a modification of zoning standards for the on-site guest parking requirements. And finally, approved discretionary design review permit PLN2022Dash00331. The modification of zoning standards, vesting tentative track map number eight 692, tree removal of four trees, and a privacy entitlement to facilitate the development of the proposed project based on the findings and listening to the staff report and subject to the conditions of approval. And I can take any questions at this time.

Alright. Do any commissioners have any questions? Alright. First one is commissioner Zhang.

Oh, thank you, chair. So the I have two questions. One is the the parking study seems conduct in 02/2024 or 2025. Can you confirm? It says on the days of May 20 to through May 26, but I'm not sure the the year.

I don't have that specific detail, but the applicant is here along with the architect who conducted the parking study, and they may be able to answer that question.

Okay. I'll I'll ask later. The other question is the can you pull the the emergency road, like, truck road again? I'm I'm not very clear how this how is it drawn over there.

So at this at the bottom of this figure, there is an existing 20 foot access way. The project would propose a new 20 foot access way that would stem from the the middle of the existing access way to create another EVAE slash utility utility trench for to serve the existing or the proposed houses. So the one at the south already exists. Mhmm. And so the but it exists on the applicant's property. And so there would be a new 20 foot road to serve the houses that would be in the middle of the the the figure you see.

Top of this diagram or on the bottom?

At the bottom, there is the existing 20 foot access way. And it goes through the entirety of the of the south end of that lot. And the applicant, as part of this project, is proposing a new 20 foot access way that goes down the middle.

So the new 20 foot access way is parallel with Central that serves both of the townhouses from the their middle.

But does it need a big turn to get into that, right, in the middle if it's a parallel?

No. It's from the end.

Oh, I see.

Might be better if

you go to the aerial. I think you have a slide with the aerial that might be better to show.

Yeah. So on this aerial where you see Logan Drive, that's the existing 20 foot access way. And the applicant is proposing to have to build a new access way that goes straight down the middle of the lot parallel to Central Avenue. Okay. But it is perpendicular to Logan Drive.

Got it. This is reviewed by the fire department, I believe?

Yes. Alright.

Thank you.

Alright. Next. Commissioner Yi.

Yes. There there was mention about modification, I believe, at the stoplight, the stop sign that's nearby. What what what modifications need to be made for this project?

From my conversations with engineering, there's a very deprecated technology that detects traffic coming from that existing access way. That will be upgraded to a radar system, I believe.

Oh, so that would help with traffic flow? Yes. And that's good. Because I know when I drove there, it definitely doesn't do anything for a while.

So oh, good. And And the applicant is gonna be helping out. Oh, good. Yeah.

Good. Alright. Thank you.

Alright. Next, commissioner, Izzy.

Thank you. I I actually had a question, mister Lee, about the private road and then the access road. I'm wondering if you can just go back to that to the the diagram that you had up just a second ago.

Is it the the site plan? I'm not sure if

it's Joe. Yeah. There it is. No. That's good.

Okay.

Okay. So I just wanna understand. So what we're seeing at the bottom of this here, right, which is perpendicular to central, that's Logan. That's like the existing Logan that's used to go into that apartment complex that's there just past the so that that's what we're seeing here at the bottom.

Yes. And according to the language of that easement, it is a perpetual non exclusive easement.

Okay.

So it currently serves the the adjacent apartment complex. However, the apartment complex still maintains its own exclusive access way to the north. You can kind of see it above. That's not on the applicant's property.

Got it.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. I was just trying to understand in relation to Logan kind of what we were looking at here and how it relates to the and the private street that we're referencing is that the centerpiece that runs

Yes.

Parallel to central. Got it. Okay. Thank you.

Any more questions from any commissioners? Alright. I think we can now go to public hearing. Do we have any or sorry, the applicant? Could open the public hearing for the applicant. You have ten minutes.

Thanks, Joey, and thanks, Kevin, and thanks, commissioner, for the questions. So good evening, estimated members of the planning commission. Can you hear us?

Speak up

a little

Can you speak closer to the mic, So

good evening, estimated members of the Planning Commission. My name is Bin Li, one of the owners of the property. Along with me is our architect, Ed. As a long time Fremont resident since 02/2004, we have seen all the great growth of the city. We believe the proposed townhome development project will bring many benefits to the community in line with the town's growth goals.

So this development is designed with a focus on blending seamlessly with the existing community, while also providing much needed housing. It will be a valuable addition through the following factors, to name a few, like increased housing supply, economic growth, community integration, and also it has the compliance with the zoning and the regulations. We are committed to working with the community and the Commission to address any concerns and ensure a smooth approval process. Thanks for your time and we look forward to answering any questions you have.

Good evening commissioners. My name is Ed Reinhart. I'm the architect for this project And I just wanna say we looked at all the conditions of approval. We're in agreement with all of them and we're here to answer any questions that you may have. You've already asked some pretty good questions. I think you have a good understanding of this project. If you have any questions of us, just let us know and we'll try to answer them. Thank you.

Any questions from any commissioners for the applicants? Alright. Commissioner Zhang?

I just want to repeat my question again. This parking study, would you mind let me know when it was conducted?

Oh, yeah. We did that in 2024.

Okay. Last year? Yes. Okay. So this is the before the the new parking law was ineffective, right? It seemed to me there are one blocks before you. It's kind of there's a traffic light where you basically cannot park anymore. I see. So what would do you think that's new log gonna affect your analysis?

No. I don't think that would affect anything.

But if I understand correctly, the the new parking space you created won't be a designated?

No. It won't be a designated parking spot.

Right. Okay. Okay. I will thank you.

And maybe I can just step in real quickly, commissioner Zhang, on the daylighting rules for the crosswalks. Mhmm. That four twenty two and a half feet of parking space is considering that there's a limit on 20 feet in front of a crosswalk. So it's four spaces. If you wanted to legally park there, then, yes, you can take into that space. But there are four spaces under consideration with the new state laws in mind.

Yeah. That that's my understanding. But the the study conduct here are, like, number of vehicles, those are last year, I mean, at least the two times, whenever it's the site, it's every all the street parking spots are all occupied. It's pretty heavy. It doesn't look like the numbers are here. Thank you.

Commissioner Yi? Yeah.

I guess maybe to piggyback on the the parking or the use of the parking that's currently there. Right. How many tenants are currently residing at that house that's there? Because it it looks like there's multiple people that are there. Maybe that addresses the reason why there's so many cars out in the front.

Could be a let me ask the the owner. He might know how many tenants are.

Alright. So we actually rented out to a family. So I I believe that there are about six tenants in total.

Okay. Okay. And I know that as our planner Lee is discussing is about the daylighting lawn. And I asked the question of the two guest parking spaces and what additional parking spaces available. It's a 104 feet, four four spots. It takes an account for the daylighting law that just recently was adopted and passed this year. I'm I'm suspecting that, you know, because now with the new design with the 10 townhomes having two car garages that would help to address and alleviate some of the concerns about additional parking needs, you know, on the street level.

Exactly. We're gonna it we're providing about 23 parking spaces on the site as it as we've proposed with the parking garages, with the two car garages. So we've got 20 parking spaces and then the three guests on the site. So I think we're actually providing quite a bit of parking for that project.

Alright. Thank you.

I provide one more clarification. I know we've talked about this for a little bit. But when you look at the site, on the left side is that existing driveway that goes back to the back. There are driveways on the property as well. And those driveways are being removed, and so that provides additional parking that wasn't there before where those driveways are being removed and you're relying only on the side access. Again, minus the daylighting.

Okay. Any other comments from any commissioners? Do we have any public comments?

No, Chair. No speakers for this item.

Okay, so we're going to close the public hearing. Any more questions or comments for the staff? All right, I see no comments. Any deliberation or any motions? Commissioner Zhang?

He's gotta get used to this side of the table.

Yeah. Thank you. Although I I still have concerns about the parking because at least a couple of times I visited the site. I'm I I've used to believe they're around. It's very hard to find parking, especially as a d m across the DMV and another apartment compound. But I I see that this two car garage can can relieve some of my concern. So and the if this is new there's a two new parking spot can create it, that's what be helpful. So in general, I I don't see the parking as a blocker for me. I'm I'm I'm gonna generally kinda appreciate the design, and it seems good to me.

Okay. Commissioner Yi?

Well, I'm not going to deliberate. I'm I make a motion to accept staff recommendation on this particular project.

Okay. I'll second.

Alright. So, without any other comments, we'll take a vote. Alright.

And the vote is unanimous of those present with, noting that Charles Liu abstain or recused himself. And on a motion by, commissioner Yee, second by Craig, This motion is or this action is final of the commission unless appealed to the city council within ten calendar days.

Great. Thank you. Do you wanna take a break now? Or

We're about fifteen minutes shy of a required break. You could either start with the next item or we could take a break now.

Yeah.

Do

you want a

break now or later? Okay. We'll just grab, commissioner Lewin and keep going, and we'll break, we'll break later. So we're not breaking now.

Alright. We can move on now to, item number three, Irvington Arches, and we'll start, with an introduction.

Alright. Irvington Arches is a project at 41811 Blaco Road to consider a conditional use permit, discretionary design review permit, zoning administrator permit amendment, tentative track map number 8700, private street and tree removal, to redevelop an approximately 1.73 acre lot for a mixed use development consisting of an addition to an existing school and day care facility, and the construction of 14 attached condominium units across three buildings at 41811 Blaco Road in the Irvington Community Plan area. And I consider findings under CEQA for exemptions under fifteen three three two, fifteen three zero one, fifteen one eight three, one six two, and one six three. The project planner tonight is the same planner from the previous item, Kevin Lee, who could conveniently stay at the at the staff table. I do wanna note that the same letter we received or the same a similar letter we received for the last item was received for this item noting the applicability of the with respect to this project.

Kevin's ready when you're ready.

Please proceed. Good evening again. My name is Kevin. I am the staff planner for the Irvington Arches project here at 41841811 Blake Howe Road. This is for a horizontal mixed use development located in the Irvington community plan area.

The project scope consists of an addition to the existing commercial use and the redevelopment of the existing parking lot to construct 14 attached townhomes across three buildings. Included with this project would be a new shared parking lot with an upgraded trash enclosure, substantial new landscaping across the project, and, on the Blakehart Row frontage. For existing conditions, the site is 1.73 acres. It is zoned office commercial and has a general plan designation of general commercial. The site is located across the street from Irvington High School and it is surrounded by a gas station to the west and residential development to the east and south.

The existing commercial building was established in 1973 as a YMCA facility. However, it currently hosts a day care and after school tutoring center. The planning commission is asked to consider approving the following entitlements, a conditional use permit to approve the residential component of this mixed use project, a discretionary design review permit, tentative track map number 8700, a private street entitlement located in the interior of the site, tree removal of nine existing trees, and an amendment to the existing zoning administrative permit for the day care and after school tutoring center approved back in 2019. This mixed use development proposes a 1,800 square foot addition to the existing commercial building. This this addition cons includes offices, a restroom, and a new multipurpose room to support the operations of the existing daycare and tutoring center.

The residential component consists of three three story buildings that amount to approximately 31,000 square feet of residential area. There is a new internal circulation system which would support both the residential and commercial components of this project with a shared parking island with designated guest parking spaces for the residents and also for customers of the commercial use. Each of the 14 units would consist of three bedrooms and three bathrooms, approximately 2,200 square feet per unit. The differences between the units is due to moving of the walls to create a more varied frontage for the exterior. Each of the units come with a two car garage and have recessed balconies on the Second And Third Floor.

The commercial component, again, there's 450 square feet for a new office and associated facilities such as a restroom, and there is a 1,300 square foot multipurpose room being constructed to support the children and students. And new landscaping and a trellis structure would be constructed on the Blake Howe Rose Street frontage to improve the pedestrian experience. The site changes, again, there is a shared parking lot. In compliance with our parking requirements, there will be nine residential guest parking spaces all located on-site. There are 19 commercial use parking spaces also located on-site.

The project proposes to preserve three of the trees that are existing on Blakehoe Road. Nine trees will be removed to facilitate the necessary improvements for the project and over 60 and 60 trees will be planted across the project site. There is an upgraded trash enclosure which would be shared by the commercial use and the residential use. And located at the southwest of the property, there would be 2,800 square feet of common open space which is over double the required 1,200 for the residential units. For the commercial addition, design wise, it is designed to match the new residential buildings through matching colors and the addition would match the setbacks of the exist of the proposed residential units alongside Blake Howe Road.

The use of the new space by the day care and after school tutoring center requires an amendment to the existing zoning administrator permit, was approved under PLN twenty nineteen seventy six. The only change would be to allow the users to utilize these new spaces. There is no change being requested for the approved number of students and children. And drop off and pick up operations would be conditioned to be limited to inside of the project site and any off-site impacts would require the applicant to work with traffic engineering to figure out a way to reduce those impacts whether through staggering classes or limiting parent drop off to after the busy hours. Lastly, the addition design complies with the citywide design guidelines as expressed in the staff report.

The residential units utilizes a mix of materials, protruding bays, varying roof lines, and recessed balconies to create a visually attractive design. The staff report analyzes the specific requirements of the project design but also demonstrates that the project substantially complies with all the objective design standards of the multifamily design guidelines. The project also meets the requirements to qualify as a horizontal mixed use development as contemplated in the municipal code and complies with all the zoning regulations applicable for the project including FAR, setbacks, building height, and parking standards. This project is subject to the Housing Accountability Act which, requires the city to approve a housing project if it meets all the objective general plan, zoning, design, and subdivision standards. It also requires the commission to make findings that the project would have specific adverse impacts on public health and safety and that no feasible mitigation exists in order to deny, the project.

Per staff's analysis, the project is compliant with set standards and there is no evidence of unavoidable impacts that would necessitate its approval. In addition, the overall project qualifies for an exemption from CEQA per CEQA guidelines fifteen three three two as an infill development project and the commercial edition qualifies for an exemption under CEQA guidelines fifteen three zero one for existing facilities. With that, staff recommends that the planning commission find the project exempt from CEQA under CEQA guidelines fifteen three three two and fifteen three zero one, find that the project is in conformance with the general plan and its policies and goals, approve the amendment to zoning administrator permit PLN twenty nineteen zero zero zero seven six based on findings and subject to the new conditions of approval found in conditions b one through b 20 of PLN 20 twenty four zero zero zero seven three, and approved discretionary design review permits PLN twenty twenty four seventy three, tentative track map number 8700, tree removal, and a private street entitlement for the facilitation of this project's development based on findings and subject to the conditions of approval. And that concludes my presentation. I can take any questions.

Any questions from any commissioners? Commissioner Ezzy?

Thanks for the presentation. I just had a question when I drove by the site. It's like there's the the day care center on one side, and then there's like a big parking lot. I don't know how many spaces are there. So I'm just trying to understand sort of how the new plan and the new project jives with the existing parking and all that sort of stuff. It feels like there's a lot of parking there, and the building is relatively small, and most of that parking lot is now taken up by the residential development. And so any thoughts on how those things are netting out in the new project relative to kind of the existing? I'm sure there's some history why that parking lot was so big and, you know, all of that. Any context you can provide on that?

When this the site was originally developed with this large parking lot. When the project was brought to the zoning administrator to approve the childcare and after school tutoring use, the project report mentions the excess of parking spaces and actually is much more than is required for such a use. For childcare, parents drop off their kids and they don't park there. Parking is really only for the employees and same for the after school tutoring use. You don't really expect people of driving age to be using the parking lot. So, as mentioned before, the project provides the required amount of parking under our parking ordinance.

Thank you.

Commissioner Yi?

Yeah. So, Kevin, I'm just trying to, determine the, the distance to the property line over by where the car wash is, how far away are the property, you know, from from that car wash? One second here.

It's 10 feet away from the property line.

Okay. Thank you. That's I was just trying to figure that out because one of the things, I went out there a couple times because I went there during the day to try to take a look and see how drop off and pickup is. And then the other time was going there at night trying to see the spillover, the light pollution coming from the gas station relative to the parking lot. And my experience, what I could see is that the light pollution is significantly less than the actual lights being emitted from the parking lot itself.

So I, you know, I saw that we have a light emissions report, and I know it doesn't talk about, you know, what's what spillover is coming from the next door neighbor. But it sounds like based on what I saw from staff's response to my question that the 25 foot tall trees once they mature should be able to block any light pollution coming from the gas station. Is that correct?

Right. The trees on average grow to be 25 feet. The units on that end are also oriented in a way where the only bedroom is on the Third Floor, and I believe that is higher than the where the actual lights are in that corner of the gas station.

Yeah. That's correct. Yeah. They're not they're not that high. Yeah. Matter of fact, there are LEDs that are actually pointing down, which, you know, very directional, so that's good. Okay. Alright. Thank you.

Commissioner Zhang?

Thank you, chair. Since commissioner Yi mentioned the light pollution, I'm gonna wonder, is there any way any facilities to mitigate the sound pollution, especially the the car wash operated at 10PM. And from my sound meter tells me, like, a seven like, 60 dB constantly, and I believe it's gonna be higher when when it operate. So

So as part of the building permit submittal, the applicant is required to submit a sound study to demonstrate that the interior of the units complies with our general plan, which actually outlines the acceptable noise volume for those things. And so we'll need to it will be analyzed and made sure to be to comply with our general plan.

Is it kinda required for this applicants applications? Or

The sound study is required as one of the conditions. The applicant is also aware of that as well and is aware of the car wash next door. The project will need to comply with our general plan when it comes to the building building permit process.

For for your information, the standard in a bedroom is 45 decibels, and so that's not not difficult to do with STC rated windows and wall assemblies.

Yeah. I I'm fine because this it depends on how they sell it, but this is really a concern if if I'm I am the potential buyer. Anyway, thank you.

Commissioner Yu? Yeah.

I am I too went out there with a sound know planning and the planning secretary knows I have one of these high end sound level meters. So I went out there too and did readings right by that car wash. That's why I asked you, Kevin, how far away. So I took it right up against the sound wall, and I took it to where I think approximately where the the properties would be. And where the properties would be, what I what I found was was about when a when a car went through to get washed, it was about 70 to 71 dBs.

So actually, it's not quite that loud. At the street level, it's it's actually significantly louder. I was hitting anywhere from to 84 dBs depending on what type of vehicles we're driving through. But I know that they're going to be doing a sound study to make sure that, just like what, our planning secretary said, that the interior noise has to be 45 dBs or less.

And it's the hope that the landscaping on the west end of the property would also help to mitigate that sound as well.

Commissioner Liu?

Yeah. So, Kevin, did we hear any complaints from the existing residents in the townhomes or condos nearby next to a gas station?

I haven't received any public correspondence since the note public noticing went out outside of one letter that was concerned about traffic impacts from the new development, but nothing from the adjacent neighbors.

Okay. Thank you.

Any more questions from any commissioners? I think we can open public hearing. So give ten minutes to the applicant or do you want

Chair, do you want to take a break prior to having the applicant speak? We do have a required break for our steno captioners ninety minutes into the meeting.

Okay, we can do that.

Is that fine?

Yep. Okay. So we'll take a ten minute break. Perfect.

Yeah. Ali's really excited to work recently. I had a meeting with him, and I'm like We all are. Let's get this rolling. He's at the meeting at the end of the month.

Well, that's what I was so shocked too because I got invited to a meeting in

a weeks. Right? Well, so

I I talked to Sweeney. He's now starting to go around going like, hey. Like, you can, like, give him contract. Yeah. No. Like, give him a new contract. Like, come on. Right? Like, this was, like

so he's like, I don't think it's the end the world, though.

Like, don't put your energy into this. Like, don't worry about it.

I think we can get started. So where are we at with item number three? We heard from staff, so we can now open it for public hearing. And we have ten minutes for the applicant to speak.

Good evening, everyone. My name is Kiran Darsha. I represent Tripoli Arches, who is the applicant. And I have here with me my architect. Unfortunately, my architect could not come, but Tripti is representing my architect, and Madhuri is also representing my civil engineer.

And also, I have my two two of my partners partners here. So I would like to start with saying thank you, commissioners. I did try to I did leave a message to Charles Liu, Ben Beni, young young Zhang Young Wang Zhang, Benjie Craig, Jasmine Jasmine Bassrai, and Shobhana Ramurthy. Unfortunately, Mufadel Lezi, your information was not there on the website, so I could not contact you. But if you have any questions, please let us know.

I would like to thank Kevin Lee, the planner on the project, and all the plan checkers on the planning planning team who who have diligently worked on worked with us to for over two years now, almost three years, to mitigate all the issues, concerns, and then to reach this point this point and, you know, to go to the next steps. And I also want to thank secretary, planning secretary Joel Pollan, planning manager Cliff, I think, Cliff Nguyen, and all the staff who have worked both with us and also in the background to get us to this point in in the whole project. With that being said, you know, I I would like to, you know, if you have any questions, concerns, I will try to answer to the best of my knowledge. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any questions for the applicant? Commissioner Zheng.

Thank you, chair. Are you also the owner of the the the day care facility?

Yes. Me and my wife.

You are operating it or is it somebody else?

We are operating.

Okay. Can you tell me what is the what will be the route if after the this get built, what is the route when some when a parent pick up their kids? Are they

Our current instructions is the same. They will enter the driveway, which is next to the gas station.

There are two two driveways. Right?

Yes.

And they will enter from the driveway, which is close to the gas station, and then come out, drop the kid, and come out in the other other driveway. And that will still remain the same. Even after the whole development, they still have two driveways. Those that's not getting changed.

So Okay. From IC, for today, with the employee, they're gonna park their car and get in step inside and pick up their kids. Right? Yes. So they do you do need us some parking space to to make sure that works.

Yes. And we have enough parking spaces, more than required more than required by the ordinance. Mhmm. And we have made sure that we have you know, my staff helps the parents at the regular times

Mhmm.

For pickup and drop offs. But if they come off not during those hours, then they have to park and go inside. Right.

How many staff you you have in in in the preschool?

We have 10.

Take care.

Ten, eleven staff.

So the you probably you need a 10 parking space for

Yes. We have 20 parking spaces. Right. I I think 20. 19. 19. 19 parking for the school, and then the Nine for guest parking.

Yeah. That that's the number I said. Okay. Thank you. My my final question is still about the the sound issue from the car wash. Can you tell me what do you think or any medication in your mind? We

will we will do this sound study as required by the CUP approval conditions, and then we will use the appropriate windows, you know, double pane windows, triple pane windows. I don't know that all the things. But we will comply with those requirements.

Thank you.

Commissioner Craig?

Yeah. It was great talking to you earlier. And I just wanted to kind of build build on our conversation earlier about just questioning about what kind of maybe programs or events that you have on-site that may require additional parking or if you have holiday holiday events or things like that. If you could explain what events you have on-site or if you do them other places just so we understand if there are times that you may have additional capacity or after hours or weekend stuff.

Thank you.

We we do certain events, school events during normal business hours, which are like, you know, Father's Day, Mother's Day, Thanksgiving, Christmas, and those things. But we do stagger it. We do stagger it as of now, even though we have a big parking lot, we do stagger it just for the kids to you know, the teachers need to have the kids look after the kids and also do the event. So we stagger it. And then all of our classroom we have multiple classrooms, not one big auditorium kind of thing, so we cannot accommodate inside if all the parents come at the same time.

So same thing we would follow. Going forward, we will do the same thing. In case we do have a one event where we invite all the parents at the same time, which we we've been doing outside the we rent a elementary school, public elementary school, Mission San Jose Elementary, to do those events. So the regular events should not affect the traffic or the parking existing parking.

So what you're doing already won't be affected by the reduced parking?

No. Okay. Thank you.

Commissioner Liu?

Hi, Karen. We didn't get a chance to speak before the hearing. Yep. I do have a question for you. I remember you were also the applicant and maybe the operator for a day care type of facility in Warm Springs with townhome projects. Right? Yes. So that one got approved.

Yes. And we worked on that for the for the building permits. And last six months, I've been working with PG and E, ACWD, USD, and Alameda County. Those have been approved as well. We will be starting the construction in March, April, provided we get the permits in hand.

Okay. That's very good to hear because my follow-up question is that there I remember there was another second project by Alder And Fremont Boulevard, the 13 townhomes. Right? That that how how is that progressing?

That we are hitting some few roadblocks, but we are working on that that one.

Yeah. So so basically my my concern was, you know, with all these projects that the planning commission already approved and and they have not been built. I was just wondering whether from a business standpoint, with all these investment that you put in, they haven't been built and you are starting another project here. So So it would certainly love to see some some real things happening.

Yep. I'm waiting for that too, you know, provided all the agencies cooperate. You know, the I'm you know, the last thing is I for me also, I want to see getting started, doing actual construction, completing it, but unfortunately, it is it is what it is. Getting the PG and E approval is taking six months, and then ACWD, county, all this unless all these agencies approve, I cannot I cannot start the construction. So but Brown Road project is very close.

We'll be starting that construction very soon.

Okay. Thank you.

Commissioner Yi?

Yes. My question is, how many students do you currently have enrolled right now?

We have around 95.

95. Okay. And you and you say you staggered them as they're for pickup and drop off? Yes. And then how how many, I guess, how many times did you do that for the pickup? It's like two cycles, three cycles. Even

we stagger it, but preschool pickup drop offs are not like elementary school or middle school pickups, where all the students come at the one time and start the classes. Preschoolers is like two hour it's a two hour event where morning two hours, they keep coming, and evening, they start the pickups at 05:00, and it it goes till 06:00 06:00. So that's that's how, you know, it it is happening right now.

Okay. That that explains when I was out there watching to see this, like, this little trickle.

Yep.

Yeah. It's not like Irvington High School across the street where they just come in a gigantic wave.

Yep. Yeah.

You know, and I I know what it feels like being one of the former parents with children that had to go I had to get in line. Yeah. You know, so it's Yeah. That was It was kind of different for me because I guess I it's been such a long time. My kids were preschoolers to actually remember what it was like, you know, for this pickup and drop off at a preschool level. Yep. Yeah. Okay. Then when you and I spoke over the phone, you had shared with me some your thoughts of as to why you wanted to have these townhomes built because you're having some issues with the parking lot and in particular with, I guess, uninvited guests is how I'll say it. Yep.

Could you maybe elaborate a little bit more for those that may have not had the same conversation you and I have had?

Yeah. Definitely. You know, we have 62 parking spots currently, and the building size is 6,500 square foot. And then for the current enrollment or the maximum enrollment of a 105 kids, that's the capacity that I can have. And this is a huge parking lot.

And maintaining it is becoming a nightmare. To start with, one is, I don't have to say, the homeless homeless people come and camp, trash the place, and those things. Those that's a you know, you've been in this area for some time, you know how it is. And then the Fremont Police Department has done excellent job. They, in fact, they I had to call them several times in last few years.

They have they have come and then they get the people out. That's the and what and the good thing about Fremont PD is sometimes they come and do their paperwork or they park their vehicle inside at odd odd times, so that keeps other unwanted guests out of out of this location, which is very good. You know, I have expressed my gratitude to them a few times. And the second second issue I'm face I'm facing is is the students, I guess, that's the hormonal issue, and, you know, I have seen it several times in the parking lot, cars shaking, literally shaking. So, you know, my staff my staff has seen it several times, and, you know, we have and after after whatever they do it inside the car, they throw things out in the parking, which, you know, my cleaners and landscapers need to clean.

And they have complained several times that they don't like to do such things, and they have you know? So that's other issue that I'm facing. And in the last one year or several years, this big parking lot has become a drop dead I mean, a a drop off zone for whatnot. So one guy comes and drops off something, and then an hour later, somebody else comes and picks it up. I have seen it many times, and they wouldn't they wouldn't listen, and then I did not confront them confront them, but I'm pretty sure these are gang members doing what they want to do.

So having a big parking lot is a lot of maintenance, lot of issues. So in Fremont and in, especially in whole of Bay Area, we all talk about homeless issues, housing shortage, and all these issues, but we don't talk about other issues like this gangbanger issues or high schoolers' hormonal issues, these things. So having said all this, doing townhomes or a new residential development is the best use of this this property and this parking lot. So that that's what you know, when I met when I spoke to commissioner Ben, I explained these things. And then since he's he's also from this area, he is well aware of at least some of the issues.

Alright. Thank you.

Commissioner Ezzy.

Thank you so much for the presentation. I just had a a few questions. I actually think the idea of of pairing a preschool and day care with a residential development is really interesting. What you said 95 students right now, and in the current building, it's, a 105 is your capacity? Yeah. What is the new capacity?

The same thing.

It'll be the same. So the capacity is not changing. Okay. Do you do you anticipate having customers or patrons of the daycare center that are residents of the townhomes, potentially? Sure. Okay. The and the parking that's affiliated with the preschool building is the is the parking that's, like, right in front of it. Is that that's the parking that's designated for the preschool building?

And and the other one. Next to the garbage enclosure.

Okay. Got it. Okay. Yeah. And then I had a question about so I I guess it's the sort of behind the preschool building, which is, I guess, the east side of the parcel, that looks like there's a big open area. Yes. Just curious what your plans are for that.

That's a play area Okay. For the preschool. Okay. And we are retaining that as is.

Okay. Got it. Thank you.

Any more questions for the applicant? I don't see any more questions. Do we have any public comment? I think we're done with the applicant. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Do we have any public comments?

No, Chair. We have no one requesting to speak for this item.

With that, I think we can close the public hearing. Any more questions from any commissioners to the staff? Alright. I don't see any questions. Any deliberation or motions?

Alright. Commissioner Craig?

I'll make a motion to approve.

Okay. I'll second. Commissioner Liu, did you wanna say anything or just

No. No. I'll just second.

Okay. Commissioner Zhang, you put your hand up to it.

I'm I'm good.

Okay. So we have a motion from commissioner Craig with a second from commissioner Lu. Can vote.

Vote is seven zero, in favor of the project, with a motion by, commissioner Craig and a second by commissioner Liu. The action of the commission on this project is final unless appealed to the city council within ten calendar days.

Okay. Great. Thank you very much. Congratulations. Alright. We're ready to move on to item number four Ardenwood At Paseo appeal. Thank you, planner Lee. Alright.

Well, planner Lee is, taking his leave of the, staff table, and, the folks for the next one are coming up. I'll introduce the item. This is the Yardenwood at Paseo appeal at 6200 Paseo Padre Parkway. This is to consider a third party appeal of the zoning administrator's approval of a discretion design review permit and floor area ratio increase to allow a proposed five building light industrial r and d project consisting of approximately 407,000 square feet of new development plus renovation of existing 43,000 square foot light industrial r and d building on the site bounded by Paseo Padre Parkway, Ardenwood Boulevard, and Commerce Drive in the North Fremont Community Plan area. To consider an exemption from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA guidelines sections fifteen one eighty three, fifteen one six two, fifteen one six four.

And the project planner is Mark Cleveland, supported by senior planner Mark Hungerford. Recommended action is to deny the appeal and approve the project based on findings and subject conditions. Before we started, I do wanna note the that we received a 67 page letter from the appellant after close of business at my office today. We have reviewed the information provided and are prepared to respond to its contents, but generally, we stand by our analysis on the project. We have the environmental consultant for the project as well as senior planner Mark Hungerford available to and present to speak to those items.

And then, finally oh, the environmental consultant's name is Rebecca Auld, and she's available if necessary. And then the app app staff has a presentation. I do wanna note that this one's a little unique chair in that the appellant is the applicant. So the appellant gets ten minutes followed by the project applicant and the public and a rebuttal from the appellant.

Alright.

Good evening again, commissioners. Again, we're talking about Ardenwood At Paseo, the third party appeal for at located at 1606200 Paseo Padre Parkway, PLN 2025 Dash 00087. The item before planning commission this evening is a third party appeal, the zoning administrator's approval of PLN 2022 Dash 00466. On 10/15/2024, the zoning administrator approved a discretionary design review, a floor area ratio increase, and a tree removal request. The zoning administrator also found that the project was exempt from CEQA.

On 10/24/2024, the East Bay Residence For Responsible Development filed an appeal to the zoning administrator's decision. The project site sits on a 24.2 acre made up of four different parcels. The General Plan designation is Tech Industrial, which sites in this designation are intended for research and development, clean and green tech, semiconductor facilities, computers, hardwaresoftware, related technological and administrative facilities, as well as sales and engineering office uses. The zoning for this site is P 80 One- 15, which is a nineteen eighty one plan district that set the parameters for the land use and development for the area between I-eight 80, State Route 84, and the Paseo Padre Parkway. The plan district was called the Ardenwood New Town, and it sought to mix a variety of land uses that were strategically laid out throughout the district with an eye compatibility the district with an eye for compatibility.

Allowed land uses included housings of various types and densities, retail services, commercial areas, schools, parks, and then nearly 300 acres of high-tech industrial and business park areas. The project site lies within this area targeted within the area targeted in the Plan District and General Plan for Industrial Use. This site is also part of the North Fremont Community Plan. The project would complete development of a six parcel site that's located at the north end of the Plan District's industrially focused area. As proposed, the southern portion of the site along Commerce Drive would be developed with two two story light industrial buildings, both measuring at about 75,000 square feet, and one three story development at about 91,000 square feet.

The two story buildings would stand at approximately 36 and a half feet tall and the three story building would stand at about 51 and a half feet tall. The site's facade au pardre frontage would be developed with two two story light industrial buildings that are also about 75,000 square feet in size. And then the building proposed at the northern end of the frontage would measure at about 91,000 square feet as well. Both buildings would stand at about 36 and a half feet height, and situated between those two buildings is the existing one story facility that they proposed to renovate and will remain in place. There are also two existing light industrial buildings located in adjacent parcels, but they are not involved in this project.

They're located at 34175 and 34325 Ardenwood Boulevard. The project site would have approximately or would have fourteen oh three parking spots, including 145 EV chargers. The project includes 79 short term bicycle parking spaces and 61 long term spaces. Project proposes to remove three seventy two trees from the site, however, a total of five twenty three new trees would be planted along the site's perimeter, the parking field, the open space amenities being proposed. The total FAR across the three parcels that will be created through the lot combination is 0.42, the FAR increase request is generated from a lot that will house Buildings 234 And 5, which brings for a total of 0.51 FAR on that site.

Industrial development when an allowed use when is an allowed use is approved through a ministerial design review in Fremont, where this project would have a conform sorry. Where this project have a conforming floor area ratio, it would have not been subject to a discretionary public hearing process or trigger CEQA analysis. The minor floor area ratio increase being requested triggered the zoning administrator hearing where the project and its CEQA were approved. The project is laid out in a manner that creates a campus like environment as intended by the plan district. A wide landscape buffer brings the site's perimeter and project buildings are situated in such a way that they can seal much of the site's interior parking areas from the public view.

The project features a comprehensive landscape design that adds visual quality to the site. The project frontages feature a 20 to 30 foot wide landscape easement that would be planted with a repeating pattern of spreading shade trees and row trees along the parking lot edges. Within the easement, a three foot tall earthen berm planted with evergreen buffer shrubs would further screen the site's parking areas from public view. Enhanced tree and shrubs plantings would be provided at each driveway entrance and street intersection to elevate the project's curb appeal. The project's concrete tilt up building feature a consistent, high quality design aesthetic that incorporates high transparency aluminum frame window systems and a mix of finishes that include metal composite and corrugated panels, horizontal accent elements, and a complementary color palette to add visual interest.

Building rooftops have been designed with an eight foot tall parapet that architecturally integrates into the building elevations. The loading and service areas of each building have been placed along the rear, concealing these areas from the public review. Exterior lighting, both at each building and within the parking fields, has been designed to eliminate the potential for glare on neighboring properties. The zoning administrator found that the project is exempt from requirements of the CEQA pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15,183, projects consistent with the general plan, and sections fifteen thousand one hundred sixty two and one hundred sixty four. The project approved by the ZA on 10/15/2024, had a third party appeal filed within the ten day appeal period.

The appellant argues that the substantial evidence does not support the CEQA determinations and necessary findings to approve the project, and the findings cannot be made. It's worth noting that the stated grounds of the appeal are CEQA related and that the project's discretionary design review permit and floor area ratio request, which the zoning administrator could make positive findings for and approve, were not included in this appeal. The appeal is on seeker grounds and staff stands by its prior determination that the project is eligible for 15183 streamlining and that the evidence in the record supports the use of CECO streamlining and no further environmental analysis is necessary. These determinations were made following the significant study of the site and the project's impact on a and a third party CEQUA consultant, city legal staff have confirmed the appropriateness of the conclusions made. As Joel mentioned, our CEQUA consultant, Rebecca Old from Lamford Gregory, is here tonight to answer any specific questions you may have about CEQUA.

She also has prepared a written response to the points included in the consultant's appeal filing, which is one of your informational items. Back now to the project. Oops, sorry about that. A new six foot wide sidewalk would be installed along the site's Commerce Drive frontage where no public walk currently exists. Additionally, as conditioned, the project will install a traffic signal at the currently unsignalized Pasegero Padre And Commerce Drive intersection that abuts the site near the entrance of East Bay Regional Park's district, Coyote Hills.

The newly constructed sidewalk will allow traffic and engineering to allow parking along Commerce Drive where none are currently allowed, which will generate an estimated 50 parking spaces along that public road. Like I said, this will formalize curbside parking that the public often already uses to access Coyote Hills. The project's new construction buildings will generate approximately $7,000,000 in city impact fees, and the newly installed sidewalk will connect to the existing sidewalks that line the site's Paseo Padre and Ardenwood Boulevard frontages, completing the pedestrian loop around what is kind of an island of parcels that is over there. The land upon which the project is proposed has been intended for industrial development since its adoption of the planned district over forty years ago. Since development of this initial buildings with this island of parcels, a campus like setting was contemplated with future buildings.

This project delivers that, as the site would be interconnected and share similar form and appearance. Implementation of the project would strengthen the city's industrial base and economicals of a diverse mix of industrial and technology uses. Fremont is a hub of key driving industries such as advanced manufacturing, biotech, and cleantech. This project would support a wide range of quality jobs and generate a significant amount of revenue, as well as increase the stock of industrially zoned buildings in Fremont. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find no further environmental review as required for the project, find that the project's discretionary design review permit and FAR increase is consistent with the general plan and zoning, and deny the appeal, upholding the zoning administrator's approval of the project.

Thank you for your time, and I'm available for questions.

Do questions? We have Commissioner Ramamurthy.

You mentioned this is for manufacturing to this location. What I did not hear in today's presentation is something that I heard last month, I think. There was application for a manufacturing plant. And we we all were so impressed with what they provided. With the electricity of high voltage, they already had the permission.

And second thing I remembered is, like, the depth of the concrete they poured that so to withstand all these manufacturing equipments in there. I did not hear any of those information in in this application, whatever we have given. Why is it when somebody can provide such high quality manufacturing plant in our city? Why can't we have same kind of standards for others, too? Why we lack all that information in this?

So that was a that building you're referring to from your last meeting was a building that was being spec ed out specifically for high manufacturing, and that is what that particular applicant was was putting out in the market. This particular project doesn't have any sort of, initially, or at least I haven't been told, prospective clients, is more going to have there's a wide variety of uses in the industrial. It's not all just that, you know, thick slab manufacturing where they're gonna have high heavy tools. This this is kind of different office space as well as lab space, R and D, manufacturing, and it's going to allow for a wide variety of uses, and as people rent out the space, they'll be able to do tenant improvements to kind of make the improvements they need, but this kind of leaves it as a blank slate for people to move in, and I can let the owner speak more about any prospective tenants, but they're just a different kind of product. Not every not everything in the industrial space is going to be those specifically towards, like, that high, you know, tool use manufacturing.

Okay. So can we get some kind of assurance from the owners that they are not going to rent out rent this out for any manufacturing that requires heavy tools and things like that, that requires a lot of electricity or anything like that? Is it going to be just some laboratories where they're going to be doing some research?

Well, they they could make upgrades to the building after the fact that, you know, would be to whatever use they happen to be, but it wouldn't they're afforded the right to rent out anything that would be within the industrial tech zone, is zoned in this project, which includes those things. And they may, like I said, very well alter the building or do whatever. Some of them will, you know, might, you know, different product types, so

Would they be required to come here in front of the Planning Commission at that time if they decide to rent that out to heavy machinery manufacturing?

Let me jump in here. So we specifically want our industrial areas to be flexible and to offer a variety of uses as the economy changes, as needs for industrial buildings change. And so that type of thing would be normal with an industrial area. When they come in with tenant improvements, you'll see a, you know, variation of things happen. You might have a a user take less than a whole building, and they might have a more heavy use, and one take less than take maybe a whole building, and then they might be a lighter use.

And those things, per the zoning, are allowed. We don't wanna put limits from a staff perspective on industrial uses that that vary from the standards that are allowed in the in the zoning. So I'm I'm not sure what the basis of the of the concern is coming from.

The concern is, like, I understand we need to be flexible and be the owner should be able to find a different kind of tenants. I completely understand that. My concern is if they find a tenant who uses these heavy machinery tools, and at that point, will they be coming for application again to approve it? Because we would need these requirements that something some some of the requirements we saw last time with this amazing contraction, will will they be coming here so that this new rental place also is up to that standard?

So they would have to come if there is something triggered in our ordinance. And so the ordinary things that trigger a a return trip to commission might be a hazardous material quantity that exceeded a certain threshold, and that would necessitate them coming back and doing the safety analysis with the fire department. And in some cases, that requires a return trip here. In most cases, additional power or a modification of, you know, maybe they get a bigger panel for a portion of the building or they they split it into two units and get a bigger panel. If they modify the building to, you know, change the intended use to something that's more, you know, specific to their type of business, those things are allowed by Wright to be modified.

We wouldn't send them back here. We would want the industry to be able to more seamlessly enter the building and go on. That's not to say the quality of their installation wouldn't be good. It just wouldn't come back to to commission for review.

So who monitors that? The quality is up to the standard. If they are not coming here, who who monitors that?

I think building code and fire code, but I'll yeah. Yeah.

That's correct. As Joel mentioned, when we get a tenant improvement for a new tenant to do their fit out of a particular space, plans are submitted to the city and a variety of disciplines from building and fire and planning and public works. We'll review those plans to make sure that what's being proposed is consistent with our ordinances.

Okay. Thank you.

Commissioner Yi?

Yeah. To, chime in on that is a former, owner of a medical device manufacturing company. So I do understand when it comes to leasehold improvements, just to answer your question. A number of times when you do the changes, you don't really need to go to the planning commission in order to make those changes to be made. I could tell you for me, when it came to increase needs for PG and E, it was going just directly to be you know, talking to PG and E and making sure that we did the requisite permit applications through the city.

Right? But so if it if it had to be something related to some heavy machinery manufacturing, then, again, the permitting process would easily capture that, and then the city staff would determine if it really needs to come to us to the planning commission. So when these things do change from a leasehold perspective, not all of it. I would say the vast majority, you don't have to come here to the planning commission. It's probably very rare.

But the vast majority would be just the standard permitting process through the city in order to make sure that you do everything correctly to code, you know, whether it's going through fire, you know, you know, electrical, anything that you need to shore up. You know? So, like, even for me, I still remember when we had to shore up some of the, equipment to make sure that there's, no issues with vibration. Those kinds of specs. Though but that wouldn't require anything to the planning commission. So I just wanna, you know, kinda share with you from a user's perspective. Thank you. Alright. Thank you.

Any more questions? Commissioner Liu?

Yeah. So there appears to be a solar farm on the northern tip of the project site. Is that just a demonstration project by the company who may be leasing that the off existing office building to to do demo projects, or do they have a longer term land lease with to generate power to send to PG and E?

I believe that's next trackers, and they they don't have, like, a long term lease on that. Kind of a demonstration situation on that particular parcel.

Okay. Thank you.

Any more questions? Oh, commissioner Yee.

Yeah. Now this is related to, I guess, the appeal that I saw. It's related to program EIR versus project EIR. So can staff, you know, maybe elaborate, you know, this this one one of the issues that's being addressed is the program EIR versus the project EIR for this for this agenda item?

Sure. There's yes. There is a distinction between a program EIR or programmatic EIR and a project EIR. A project EIR evaluates the impacts of a project sort of in a in a vacuum whereas a programmatic EIR, it it utilizes or evaluates a project against the the impacts that were previously identified within another environmental document. So for example, with this project, we are using a fifteen one eighty three streamlining sequel process which evaluates the project's impacts based on the impacts of the that were identified in the general plan update EIR.

And because this project is consistent with the with the general plan, we use that streamlining process to to compare the impacts of the project with the impacts that were previously identified. And if there are no new additional impacts or impacts beyond what was previously identified in that prior programmatic EIR, we're able to use streamlining. And so that's what we did in this case.

Okay. And that program EIR was done in 2011?

That's correct.

Okay. And so that that helps me out because, you know, to address some of these concerns that I see from the appeal because we talk about sensitive receptors which are across the street from that, you know, site. And then checking into when those sensitive receptors were able to purchase those homes was back in 1992. So the 2011 program EIR would capture all of that. Correct?

That's correct. And the the the the general plan designations that are within the Ardenwood Newtown area in the area that Mark described identified the area across Ardenwood Boulevard as being residential and having sensitive receptors.

Right. And so that would actually capture the way I guess what I saw was the quote unquote school, which is actually a day care located in a three story townhouse across the street, you know, in the second row in because I went over there to take a look. It's in a private residence. There's no outside, day care facility as you could see on the front nor in the back, especially the back because it's just a two car garage. So, you know, I just wanted to dispel any concerns about this quote unquote school that is being described. Am I correct in my assumption and description of what this day care facility looks like?

Yeah. It was a small family day care located in a townhome across in the adjacent track.

Alright. Thank you.

Any other questions for staff? Okay. Seeing there's none, I guess we'll open a public hearing. I guess it's the appellant who goes first. Okay. We have ten minutes for the appellant.

Good evening honorable commissioners. My name is Khalilah Federman on behalf of East Bay Residence for Responsible Development. East Bay Residence is an association of local residents and labor organizations whose members live, work, and raise their families in Fremont and Alameda County. The association includes UA plumbers and pipe fitters local 342, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers local 595, Sheet Metal Workers Local +1 04, Sprinkler Fitter Local 483, and their local members and families. Bay Residence encourages sustainable local development that complies with environmental and public health laws and has adequate public services.

The project does not comply with CEQA, the water code, or the fire code and therefore fails to meet these standards. Residence members would be adversely affected by the project's unmitigated environmental and public health impacts if it proceeds without complying with state and local laws. East Bay residents appealed the zoning administrator's approval because the project has significant unmitigated environmental public health and public services and utilities impacts that were not analyzed in the 2,011 general plan EIR or the project CEQA analysis. As a result, the project does not qualify for streamlining pursuant to CEQA guidelines section one five one eight three, and an EIR is required to address these new impacts. The record also does not provide substantial evidence to support the necessary findings to approve the project's entitlement, including the design because the project is detrimental to public health and safety.

This was raised in our initial appeal. East Bay residents respectfully asks the planning commission to uphold its appeal and require city staff to prepare an environmental impact report to address the project's significant impacts, which were not addressed in the general plan and are not disclosed or mitigated in the CEQUA checklist. We submitted comments this afternoon, which demonstrate that the city has not complied with CEQUA, the water code, or the fire code. First, there is substantial evidence demonstrating that the project may not be adequately served by local water supply and may lack adequate fire protection resources. East Bay Residence Fire Consultants reviewed the project and determined that project has inadequate water supply, fire flow, and water infrastructure necessary to support project operation.

The record demonstrates that the Alameda County Water District has not confirmed whether adequate water supply is available to support the project and that a water supply assessment may be required. In 2021, the water district asked the city to provide a description of the type of r and d manufacturing proposed for the project, the number of employees proposed, and the anticipated water demand for the operation of the buildings. The water district clarified that additional requirements, including preparation of a water supply assessment, may be necessary. There is no evidence that this documentation was ever prepared. East Bay residents has confirmed this through public records act requests to both the city and the water district.

With respect to fire safety, East Bay residents, fire safety consultant provided evidence demonstrating that recent county fire flow records show that there is inadequate water supply to support the fire flow necessary for fire protection at the site, and that existing water infrastructure is inadequate to support the project's fire flow demands. East Bay residents expert explained that substantial infrastructure improvements are necessary to increase the available water supply. These are significant water supply and public services impacts, which are peculiar to the project and are new and more severe than analyzed in the 2011 general plan EIR. With respect to air quality and health risk impacts, substantial new information demonstrates that the city's uniform policies and standards will not substantially mitigate the air quality and health risk impacts associated with project construction and operation as required by CEQA. By the city's own calculation, the health health risk associated with project construction at the maximally exposed individual would be twelve point four four in one million, which would exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's cancer risk of ten in one million, resulting in an admittedly significant impact, which was not disclosed in the general plan EIR.

The CEQA checklist assumed that these impacts are not actually significant be because the project would utilize construction mitigation from its uniform development standards and would not have any significant operational health impacts. East Bay residents air quality consultant independently calculated the project's construction and operational health risk from diesel particulate matter emissions and determined that uniform development standards would not reduce health risk impacts to below the level of significance. Our experts found a significant cancer risk for children exceeding the Bay Area air quality management threshold as well as for the lifetime of the project. The staff report attempts to dismiss this evidence by asserting that project operation would not involve diesel particulates. This is not correct.

Project operation would involve diesel particulate matter from industrial and mobile sole sources and potentially from project equipment. Neither the general plan nor the secret checklist quantify the project's operational health risk impacts. The city, therefore, has no evidence to support a conclusion that health risk is less than significant. The project's health risk impacts must therefore be independently verified by the city in an operational health risk assessment before the project can be approved. East Bay residents respectfully request that the Planning Commission uphold its appeal and require staff to prepare an environmental impact report to address the project's significant impacts, which were not addressed in the city's 2011 general plan EIR or the project CEQUA checklist. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Any questions for the appellant? Commissioner Lee?

Yeah. I I guess, you know, you guys were here about a year ago, you know, with our Kimco project. And so I guess the one thing I did notice, I went back to the Kimco project to take a look at your appeal letter that was there. And I'm I have a copy of it as well as the current one right now. And, I guess that you didn't have to use too much, staff time to put that together, that letter, that 23 page appeal because it looks like it's a form letter.

It's almost like word for word. All you have to do is take Kimco out and put in Arden Wood Paseo. So it it looks like it's using the same type of verbiage, reasoning. And I'm kinda surprised that, you know, after what happened last year, you would use a similar format this year. So that's one. My question to you is, just like I did last year, did anybody go out to take a look at this site to actually make those measurements?

To your first point, our clients raise a number of environmental issues across different projects areas across the state. We we raise air quality impacts and health risk impacts, and and these are issues our clients care deeply about. And

I understand that, but my question is, did anybody go out to actually take these measurements to to come up with your calculations?

So we utilize the city's own data and maps provided by the city

map in. Question is, did anybody go out?

No. Our consultants

That's what I thought.

On the site. We we utilize publicly information.

That's what I thought. It's just like last year. It's it's all theoretical rather than actual. Because when I went out there to try to do some of the measurements myself, not the air quality, but the actual distance from seeing sensitive receptors. I went out there with a rangefinder, and I know you guys use Google Earth, but depends on where you decide to put those dots.

So I went out there with a rangefinder, and I could determine somewhere between 900 to 1,100 feet is where those sensitive receptors are. So I'm not sure exactly how you guys do your measurements. I'm looking at my measurements because I went out there. I did it like I did last year with Kimco. So to ensure that your measurements are correct, should be having somebody out there doing this stuff.

The concern is air quality impacts within a thousand feet of sensitive receptors. So, you know, 900 feet versus 700 feet, we can we can quibble with the numbers, but we're talking about impacts to residential sensitive in

the calculations.

Sure. But the threshold is a thousand feet of sensitive receptors.

K. Let's address about the thousand feet. Based on what I see where this is a thousand feet is your Bay Area Air Quality Management District. These are nonbinding recommendations based on an overburdened community for that thousand feet. So do you know what the definition of an overburdened community is based on a b six one seven?

I don't have have a code section in front of me.

Okay. So let me tell you. Fremont is not a overburdened community. Okay? It's West Oakland, East Oakland, North Richmond, Richmond, San Pablo. That's according to Assembly Bill six one seven. So this thousand feet that you're talking about does not apply to us as as a city of Fremont because we're not considered as a overburdened according to your Bay Area Quality Management District quote that you have in your appeal.

I understand. And we we wanted to bring to the city's attention the evidence that we found that with the proximity to sensitive receptors, our experts independently found cancer risk exceeding the barrier.

Yeah. Well, I'm not sure if that's really a real issue because I live near, the Alameda County Water District building that was just recently completely demolished and improved. I went out there with two of my rangefinder to determine how far away is this 400 by 400 foot building. That's a 160,000 square feet. It's only a 100 feet away, and they're able to mitigate any dust, you know, anything that's that would be considered sensitive to me as a sensitive receptor because I know that all the homes that are that surround that perimeter, they have small children as well.

If they're able to do that and have a construction of about a it took about a year and a half, yet we're still all here, I think that it should be okay. And I'm only a 100 feet away, and you're talking about a thousand.

You know, with the project at hand, we were able to to find these impacts and

Right. But I'm I'm just telling you that based on what I see, you know, you're basing it on an overburdened community, and we're not.

You know, our our our expert comments address the specific facts on the ground of of this community. So, respectfully, we we utilize the city's own data to determine these these impacts

for Okay. And I have another question I wanna ask you too is that, you know, based on this appeal, whether this appeal goes through or not, would would your East Bay residents still bid on this project?

I can't speak to that. Okay.

And then I guess my last question, has have your have your representatives that you're representing work on any projects where they felt that there was a CEQA issue and that it would end up suing themselves?

I also can't speak to that. I I'm not familiar.

Alright.

Instances like that.

Okay. That I I think you answered all my questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Ramamurti? Yeah. I would

like to know a little bit

You're on mute now.

A little bit more about the lack of water you were talking about. What is that? What's how much water was supposed to be there and what it is available and how it's going to impact.

Yes. Thank you for that question. So our expert calculated that the Alameda County fire flow test data show shows that there's only 2,000 GPM of fire flow currently available at the site, but the project needs 3,250 GPM or more. So that means there's a deficit of 1,200 GPM of water flow than the minimum necessary for fire protection. So based on publicly available information on the Alameda County fire water we calculated that there's an insufficient water supply.

Thank you. This question for the staff, is that a correct data? Is that is the deficit of thousand? What is supposed to be there?

So I think there's two issues with respect to the water. One is water supply assessment, and one is fire flow. So with respect to the water supply assessment, staff did coordinate and collaborate with ACWD staff prior to the project going to the zoning administrator review to draft condition a 10, which is in your packet, which met the ACWD staff's interest with respect to water provision. Separately, fire flow is a matter of code and can be accomplished through various means, and we're confident that it can be provided.

Any other questions from any commissioners? Okay. Who goes next? Joel?

Sorry. The appellant is the applicant. So the project proponent would have five minutes to respond and then the appellant would come back and rebut.

Okay.

Sorry. The appellant would come back and rebut after public comment.

After public comment.

To clarify.

Clarification on the time, Joel, is it five minutes or ten?

We've historically given five.

Okay. Good evening, and thank you for your time tonight. I am Gavin Christensen, and with me is Evan Sokolowski from Arctech. I'm just going to briefly talk about our company background and philosophy, just to tell you a little bit more about us and and, our background. And then talk a little bit about potential tenant interest. And then Evan will briefly go into a little more detail on the project. We are a local business. We're based in San Carlos. We are family owned. We've been involved in the Bay Area since the nineteen twenties.

First as home builders, we transitioned into general contractors, and now we do mostly development and property management work. We only manage properties that we develop. Our properties are concentrated on the Peninsula, Sunnyvale, and here in the East Bay. Over the years, we've developed over 1,200,000 square feet of R and D and light industrial product like we're proposing to build here. We are also long term owners.

We do not build and spin and sell. Everything we've built, we still own and manage. So, we design and build projects with this long term viewpoint in mind. This particular site, we've owned the vacant land for over thirty years and we're excited to get a project going here which we know will both benefit the City Of Fremont as well as the immediate area. In terms of potential tenants, there is one existing tenant on the site, as Mark mentioned, NextTracker.

It's a solar tracking company and they do utilize that north parcel for development work. I think some of those panels power their own building also, but it's not a PG and E type installation. They are actually interested in potentially taking one of the new buildings also. They've been growing very quickly, so we've been in some discussions with them. We've also had some interest from a variety of companies the last couple of years since we announced the project.

Our primary issue is we cannot give them dates as to when we can deliver buildings. So we're hoping to get an approval here and that will help us pin down in our discussions with companies about when we can deliver product to them. Again, thank you very much and I'll let Evan talk a little bit more about the project in particular.

Evan Sokolowski with Arctech, Chair of Commissioners. It's a pleasure to be here tonight. We've been working on this project for a very long time. Actually had the opportunity to work with both of the Marks as we went through this project, starting with Mark Hungerford and transitioning to Mark Cleveland. Mark did such a good job. I'll go through this quickly. I think he did a really good job of talking about the existing sites, I think we can kind of jump ahead. Looking to develop the undeveloped site. And it was spoken already. We're looking to create some flexibility for a variety of opportunity of tenants.

It's R and D manufacturing, light industrial, tech, all these different tenants that Fremont really brings successfully to their community. And what we're trying to do is create a very flexible campus oriented site. A tenant could come in and potentially take the entire site, which Gavin would love, or it can be broken up into pairs of buildings which share very nice amenity spaces. So each building has a shared amenity space with the adjacent one. As has been stated, we put both dock high and on grade docks screened in the back of the building to service these different types of tenants, thinking about flexibility as these may be multi tenant buildings even within themselves.

Also creating and improving the site itself. The street frontages will be greatly improved. Improve landscaping along, meeting all of the EV requirements within the site. You can see how the buildings, and Mark again hit on it, they front the site, they front the streets as we wrap around, and many of the parking spots are screened on the inside as are all of our service areas. We're really excited about the opportunity this presents and as you can see from a few of the next images of the buildings themselves, looking at the aerial here, showing the different rings as well as the existing buildings in the back that are not part of the project, but high quality, light industrial, R and D buildings with a variety of materials.

So the buildings are connected together as one campus but all have a slightly different identity. You can see here some of the improvements along the street frontage that occur and then the last slide itself is just a little bit more of a close-up showing the extensive glazing and transparency that one, are attractive to these tenants that want to come to Fremont but also are very attractive looking buildings to the community. So we thank you for your time tonight and really look forward to moving this project from a design to an opportunity to bring tenants and buildings to the city of Fremont.

Great. Thank you. Any questions for this presentation? Commissioner Liu?

Yeah. So I have a question on your inability to give your prospective tenants dates. What are the main difficulties? Are the the clinical water supply water gallon per minute, I suppose, the main obstacle? Or can you tell us?

No. It's just right now, it's just getting this approval. Once we have approval, we can pin down construction times, permitting times. Those are a little bit easier to project out. We've been working on this approval for over three years now.

So initially, we thought it would be a year and a half, two years. And if we had made commitments based on those times, 'd be way off and, you know, people would be walking away. So, it's really getting through the entitlement phase gives us a basis to base construction times, permitting times, you know, those types of things. And then we can give the tenants a more concrete delivery window of when they can expect to move into the buildings. So the ACWD's water supply is really not the roadblock, right, as far as you can No. That hasn't really come up. I know there's a condition in our approval that we will work with them if there's any issues and we're committed to doing that. But that has not come up in a timeline issue for us.