Washington Place Residences (City File No. PLN2016- 00304)

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304

City of Fremont Initial Study

1. Project: Washington Place Residences (City file no. PLN2016- 00304)

2. Lead agency name and address: City of Fremont Community Development Department 39550 Liberty Street, First Floor, Fremont, CA 94538 Phone: 510.494.4440 | Fax: 510. 494.4457

3. Contact person and phone number Terry Wong, Associate Planner, City of Fremont Phone: 510.494.4456 | Email: [email protected]

4. Location: 2529 Washington Boulevard, Fremont CA; Alameda County - APN 525-0423-001

5. Project sponsor’s name and address (including e-mail address/fax no. as appropriate): SRE Development Company 901 Campisi Way, Suite 222 Campbell, CA 95008 Contact: Michael Sullivan Phone: 408.819.0615

6. General Plan designation: Residential (Low), 2.3 to 8.7 dwellings per acre

7. Zoning: Single Family Residential (R-1-X-6.5); Proposed Planned District Zoning

8. Description of Project: The proposed Project involves redevelopment of a 2.1 acre parcel located at 2529 Washington Boulevard to allow a new Preliminary and Precise Planned District, and a Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 8342 (PLN2016-00304). The project will create a 14-unit single family home development with a private street. The proposed units would be configured as duet dwellings, with two units located per building with a shared wall, but separate fee title ownership by each family of both the living area/structure and underlying land. The Project is located in the Mission San Jose Community Plan Area of the City, west of the Interstate 680 southbound exit in the City of Fremont (APN 525-0423-001) on the north side of Washington Boulevard. Currently, the majority of the project site is undeveloped, with a creek Line 6K-1 (Washington Creek) running the length of the site on its northern border. Attachment 1, Figures 1 through 5 provides maps of the project area and site. Attachment 2 is the Vesting Tentative Tract Map. The proposed project would remove/demolish two non-historic dilapidated single-story houses located at 2473 and 2529 Washington Boulevard as well as associated ancillary structures and construct 14 units in seven 3-story duet dwellings. Construction would include a total of 36 parking spaces (including 28 covered spaces within 2-vehicle garages), eight guest parking spaces, and a common open space area at the rear of the proposed development.

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304

The applicant proposes to create separate parcels for each of the fourteen dwelling units (see Vesting Tentative Tract Map Sheets 1 through 7) as well as separate parcels for commonly owned open space areas. The subdivision would be accessed via a new private street leading from Washington Boulevard into the property and providing access to the garages of each unit. A separate parcel would also be created for the on-site portion of the Creek (Parcel F). The Project site density, after development, will be 8.7 dwelling units per acre. The single family homes would feature two different three-story floor plans ranging in size from 1,857 to 1,960 square feet of living area. All residences would be provided with a two-car garage and front porch. Some of the units would have a second story balcony. The eight units fronting on Washington Boulevard are split-level with two stories in the front and three stories in the rear. A landscaped open space would be provided near the center of the site. In addition to owner parking, guest parking spaces would be provided along the private street and adjacent to the common open space at the center of the development. Two pedestrian walkways would be located along the project’s Washington Boulevard frontage and would connect to the front entrances of each residence throughout the development. The property is currently zoned R-1-X-6.5, Single Family Residential. The proposed Project involves rezoning to establish a new Preliminary and Precise Planned District, and a Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Private Street. The Project would require approval by the City’s Planning Commission and City Council.

9. Surrounding land uses and setting: The Project site is currently occupied by two contiguous vacant houses. The Project site is bordered by Interstate 680 (I-680) to the east and residential land uses to the west and south. The subject site has street frontage along Washington Boulevard, directly to the south. A creek Line 6K-1 (Washington Creek) is located along the property’s northern border, with single-family residences sited north of the creek area. Washington Boulevard is a four-lane arterial road with a median island in the middle in front of the project site, with residential neighborhoods along its south side. The proposed development would be accessed via a new private street located directly off Washington Boulevard approximately 275 feet west of the intersection of Washington Boulevard and I-680. Residents would be limited to site access using right-in; right-out only turns.

10. Congestion Management Program - Land Use Analysis: The project analysis does not need to be submitted to the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency for review, because there are no “Yes” responses to the following three questions:

YES NO This project does not include a request for a General Plan X Amendment. YES X NO There will be no Notice of Preparation prepared for this project. YES NO There will be no Environmental Impact Report prepared for this X project.

11. Other public agencies requiring approval: Alameda County Flood Control District (ACFCD); Alameda County Water District (ACWD); Union Sanitary District (USD).

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The following list indicates the environmental factors that would be potentially affected by this project. Those factors that are indicated as a "Potentially Significant Impact" in the initial study checklist are labeled “PS” while those factors that are indicated as a “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” are labeled “M”.

Agriculture and Forest Aesthetics M Air Quality Resources M Biological Resources M Cultural Resources Geology / Soils Hazards & Hazardous Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use / Planning Material Greenhouse Gas Mineral Resources M Noise Emissions Population / Housing Public Services Recreation Mandatory Findings of Transportation / Traffic Utilities / Service Systems Significance

DETERMINATION BY THE CITY OF FREMONT:

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or X agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has

been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature: Date:

Printed Name: Terry Wong, Associate Planner For: City of Fremont

Senior Planner Review:

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304

Move the star to project site

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304

I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:

Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Information ISSUES: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Sources 1, 8, A a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not b limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings X 1, 8, A within a state scenic highway? Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality c. X 1, 8, A of the site and its surroundings? Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would d. X 1, 3, 8 adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Environmental Setting

The project site consists of a 2.1 acre parcel occupied by two vacant single-story houses and ancillary structures located at 2473 and 2529 Washington Boulevard. The site is overgrown with a dense cover of seasonal grasses and weeds. The Line 6K-1 (Washington Creek) bank on the north side of the project is also overgrown with dense vegetation. Forty-two trees were identified during a tree inventory of the property (see Attachment 2, sheet C-2). The majority of the existing trees are located within the creek channel and block views of the residences to the north.

The following discussion is based in part upon a Tree Inventory of 2529 Washington Boulevard, Fremont, California, prepared HortScience, Inc., and dated June 23, 2016. Each project site tree over 6-inches in diameter was rated for preservation suitability based upon age, health, structural condition, and ability to coexist with the planned development. The tree inventory concludes that twelve trees have high suitability for preservation; that ten are moderately suitable; and twelve trees have low suitability. All of the trees are protected, as defined and regulated by the City of Fremont Tree Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 18.215 of the Fremont Municipal Code).

Regulatory Framework

Local regulations that pertain to the proposed project related to aesthetics include: • City of Fremont General Plan Community Character Chapter (adopted December 2011) • City of Fremont Municipal Code, Title 18, Planning and Zoning (Reformatted October 2012)

Discussion/Conclusion/Mitigation

a-b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

Washington Boulevard is not designated as a scenic route in the City’s 2011 General Plan Community Character Element however it is considered a primary arterial and landscape corridor for the purpose of prioritizing roadway and landscape treatments and consideration of broad views of resources throughout the City. Characteristics of a landscape corridor are street trees, wide landscaped medians and large setbacks. Interstate 680 is designated as a scenic route. The proposed project would not widen Washington Boulevard, affect its landscaped island, or create unattractive features along the roadway; therefore the proposed project would not adversely impact the City plans for maintaining and improving this Landscape Corridor. The project site is directly adjacent to an off-ramp from I-680 to Washington

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304

Boulevard. However, the site is obscured partially by a soundwall and existing trees. The area of the site closest to the off-ramp and I-680 would remain as undeveloped open space parcels. Thus, the proposed project would not adversely affect scenic vistas from I-680.

Of the 42 trees identified as occurring on the site, nine trees would be removed to allow the duet development. The trees to be removed include five California black oaks, two coast live oaks, one plum and one persimmon tree. Two existing fan palm trees would be relocated. The northern portion of the site, along Line 6K-1 (Washington Creek), is a well vegetated riparian corridor. No trees would be removed from this area, which would remain as undeveloped open space. None of the trees to be removed are considered to be a scenic resource or contain historical significance. The applicant would be required to replace each tree being removed in accordance with the 1:1 replacement requirement of the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance to the satisfaction of the City’s Landscape Architect. The proposed project includes new landscaping with a picnic area overlooking the views to the north. In summary, impacts from the construction of the project on scenic resources would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Potential Impact: Less than Significant Mitigation: None Required c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

Much of the project site is undeveloped and has not been maintained resulting in overgrown weeds and shrubs. Each of the proposed 14 homes would be 3‐stories tall with a full 2-car side‐by‐side garage as well as a covered front porch or a second-story balcony. The single family homes would feature two or three different floor plans ranging in size from 1,857 to 1,960 square feet of living area. The developer envisions an architectural style that would be contemporary, yet sensitive to the existing homes surrounding the property. The duet homes were designed to take advantage of the views and treed setting to the north, with living areas and master bedrooms facing away from Washington Boulevard. The eight units fronting on Washington Boulevard are split-level with two stories in the front and three stories in the rear. The development has been planned with a tiered retaining wall design due to the natural topography of the site. The site contains heavily vegetated setbacks between the site and surrounding neighbors to the north and west. The tiered retaining wall would also allow several site benefits: A strong interface between the new homes and Washington Boulevard and common open space areas for residents to use while preserving the natural topography with wide setbacks from existing vegetation. As such, the project would not significantly degrade the visual character of the site or its surroundings or adversely impact the privacy of the neighboring properties, and no mitigation is required.

Potential Impact: Less than Significant Mitigation: None Required d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

The project site contains two houses that are currently unoccupied; therefore, construction of the proposed project would result in light sources associated with the fourteen new residences. The City’s Zoning Ordinance requires that all exterior light fixtures be designed so as not to create significant glare on adjacent properties through the use of concealed source and/or downcast light fixtures. Compliance with

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304 the exterior lighting requirements of the Zoning Ordinance would result in the project’s having no significant lighting or glare impacts on adjacent properties, and no mitigation is required.

Potential Impact: Less than Significant Mitigation: None Required

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304

II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES - Would the project:

Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Information ISSUES: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Sources Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps a. prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring X 1, 8, Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- 19, B agricultural use? Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a 1, 8, b. X 19 Williamson Act contract?

Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)) c. X 1, 8, or timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 19 4526)? Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to 1, 8, d. X 19 non-forest use?

Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of e. X 1, 8, Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land 19 to nonforest use?

Environmental Setting

The project site consists of a 2.1 acre parcel occupied by two vacant, boarded up single-story houses and ancillary structures located at 2473 and 2529 Washington Boulevard. The site is overgrown with a dense cover of seasonal grasses and weeds. The creek bank on the north side of the project is also overgrown with dense vegetation. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (see page iv) states: “Based upon a review of historical sources, the subject property was identified to consist of multiple residences and structures, and an agricultural orchard from at least 1939 to around 1968, at which time the orchard was seemingly abandoned” (AEI, August 2015).

Regulatory Framework

State and local regulations that pertain to the proposed project related to agriculture and forest resources include: • City of Fremont General Plan Conservation Chapter • California Department of Conservation, Alameda County Farmland Map-Access via URL: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Alameda.aspx

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304

Discussion/Conclusion/Mitigation

a) Would the proposed project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

According to the California Department of Conservation’s 2012 Alameda County Farmland Map, the site is not Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Therefore, no impact to such lands would result from the project.

Potential Impact: No Impact Mitigation: None Required

b-e) Would the proposed project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Would the proposed project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)) or timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 4526)? Would the proposed project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Would the proposed project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

The project site was farmed in the past; however, farming has not occurred on the property for many years. As shown on the California Department of Conservation’s 2012 Alameda County Farmland Map, the site is classified as “urban and built-up land.” Furthermore, there are no agriculturally-zoned lands or existing Williamson Act contracts in the project area. In addition, the project would not result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, no agricultural resource or forest resource impacts would result from the development of the project, and no mitigation is required.

Potential Impact: No Impact Mitigation: None Required

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304

III. AIR QUALITY - Would the project:

Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Information ISSUES: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Sources Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air 2, 13, a. X quality plan? 21

Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to 2, 13, b. X an existing or projected air quality violation? 21 Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- 2, 13, c. attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air X 21 quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 2 13, d. X concentrations? 21 Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of 2, 13, e. X people? 6

Environmental Setting

The project site consists of a 2.1 acre parcel occupied by two vacant single-story houses located at 2473 and 2529 Washington Boulevard. The site is overgrown with a dense cover of seasonal grasses and weeds. The creek bank on the north side of the project is also overgrown with dense vegetation. The project is located on the north side of Washington Boulevard and directly west of the southbound I-680 off-ramp. The proposed duet homes are located a minimum of 400 feet west of Interstate 680.

The 2011 General Plan conducted an analysis which indicates that the major freeways in Fremont have potential toxic air contaminant (TAC) and community risk impacts that are highly influenced by meteorology. Diesel particulate matter (DPM) that leads to elevated cancer risk would be the greatest impact and influence the size of the overlays along the roadways. Based on this analysis, the General Plan indicated that the following thresholds should be considered when planning to locate new sensitive receptors along I-680 or near a major TAC source in Fremont:

• For infill development within an existing neighborhood, apply thresholds of review when new sensitive receptors are within areas exposed to health risks in excess of 100 or greater additional incidents of cancer per million exposures.

For PM2.5 concentrations, the BAAQMD has adopted a significance threshold of an annual average concentration greater than 0.3 ug/m3. •

Regulatory Framework

Federal, state and local regulations that pertain to the proposed project related to air quality include: • City of Fremont General Plan Conservation Chapter (Air Quality) • Bay Area Air Quality Management District Clean Air Plan • Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Guidelines

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304

The City of Fremont uses the guidance established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to assess air quality impacts associated with project construction and operation based on criteria pollutants contained in the adopted Clean Air Plan. The Clean Air Plan focuses on improvement of air quality throughout the basin. A network of BAAQMD monitoring stations continually measures the ambient concentrations of these pollutants for reporting purposes. The closest such monitoring station is No. 1014 located at 40733 Chapel Way in Fremont. Ozone precursors and particulate matter are the primary air pollutants of concern for development projects. These include reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrous oxides (NOx), and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5).

Discussion/Conclusion/Mitigation a-c) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of any applicable air quality plan? Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

In formulating its compliance strategies, Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) relies on planned land uses established by local general plans. When a project is proposed in a jurisdiction with a general plan in a manner consistent with that general plan, then it is also considered to be consistent with BAAQMD’s Clean Air Plan. The project, at a proposed net density of 8.7 dwelling units per acre, would be consistent with the City of Fremont’s General Plan land use designation for the project site of Residential – Low 2.3 – 8.7 Dwelling Units per Acre.

This analysis of potential impacts resulting from criteria pollutants uses the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA guidelines and thresholds adopted in May 2012. The project proposes 14 new homes, which is well below the BAAQMD’s estimated level for projects that could have a potentially significant effect on the environment in relation to the emission of operational and construction criteria pollutants. The following table shows the screening level sizes for operational criteria pollutants, GHG, and construction related emissions in comparison to the proposed project:

Land Use Operational Criteria Operational GHG Construction Related Pollutant Screening Screening Size Screening Size 325 dwelling units (NOX) 56 dwelling units 114 dwelling units (ROG) Proposed Project 14 dwelling units

The temporary effects of grading and construction activities could cause airborne dust during construction of the project that could pose a nuisance to the adjacent residences and businesses if not managed through dust control methods. However, these impacts would be of a temporary duration, and implementation of Mitigation Measure Air-1, below, would reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Potential Impact: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated

Mitigation Measure Air-1: Dust Control - Prior to the issuance of a grading and/or building permit, whichever occurs first, the following best management practices shall be included in a dust control plan to limit particulate matter (fugitive dust emissions) and noted on construction plans with the contact information for a designated crewmember who will oversee the on-site implementation of the plan:

1. Water all active construction and site preparation work areas at least twice daily and more often during windy periods.

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304

2. Cover all hauling trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard.

3. Pave, apply water at least twice daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas.

4. Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas and sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is deposited onto the adjacent roads.

5. Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas

6. Enclose or cover securely exposed stockpiles.

7. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.

8. Suspend construction activities that cause visible dust plumes to extend beyond the construction site. d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

For Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) the City of Fremont has established acceptable thresholds for new sources and receptors of increased health risk of no more than 10 additional incidents of cancer in a million as defined by BAAQMD for their individual TAC emissions. However, for sensitive receptors within developed in-fill areas of the City (such as the residential uses proposed by the project), the City uses the cumulative exposure threshold of 100 additional incidents of cancer per million (Fremont General Plan Update Final EIR. September 2011).

The Fremont General Plan identifies those areas of the City where existing sources of TACs would cause elevated health risks to sensitive receptors located nearby. The Community Risk Overlays in Fremont (Appendix C of the Fremont General Plan Final EIR) includes maps and data identifying the weighted lifetime cancer risk and elevated PM2.5 concentrations associated with major roadways and railways in the City. The project is located about 0.08 miles (420 feet) west of the Interstate 680, which is within the 1,000-foot zone of influence radius to the source (Interstate 680) of TACs.

The Community Risk Overlay for the project site (at a minimum distance of about 420 feet north of Interstate 680) identifies a weighted lifetime cancer risk of approximately 21.2 in one million, which is above the increased cancer risk threshold of 10.0 in a million or greater. This data represents the most accurate estimates of elevated cancer risk from lifetime exposure to freeway emissions. The project, however, is considered in-fill in an already developed area of the City and therefore the cumulative exposure threshold of 100 chances per million would apply. Thus the lifetime cancer risk for the project would be below the threshold.

For evaluating potential non-cancer health effects due to PM2.5 concentrations, the BAAQMD has an adopted threshold of 0.3 μg/m3 or greater. The predicted maximum annual PM2.5 concentration (at 400 feet north of I-680 between Washington and Mission Boulevard (as outlined in the risk overlay in the General Plan EIR) is .11 μg/m3, which is lower than the threshold.

Potential Impact: Less than Significant Mitigation: None required

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304

e) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

As a residential land use, the project would not create objectionable odors, once construction is completed; however, the proposed project would generate odor from localized emissions of diesel exhaust during grading and construction activities due to equipment and truck operations. These odors may be noticeable from time to time by nearby receptors; however, the odors would be temporary and would not affect a substantial number of people. As a sensitive residential receptor, the project would not generate objectionable odors, nor would it be located within a mile of an odor-generating land use. As such, the project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.

Potential Impact: Less than Significant Mitigation: None required

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:

Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Information ISSUES: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Sources Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or 1, 8, a. X A, H regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or 1, 8, A, E, b. regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California X H Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 1, 8, c. (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, X A, H etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with 1, 8, d. X A, H established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting 1, 3, 8, A, e. biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or X E, H ordinance? Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, 1, 8, f. X or other approved local, regional, or state habitat A, H conservation plan?

Environmental Setting

The project site consists of a 2.1 acre parcel occupied by two vacant, boarded up single-story houses and ancillary structures located at 2473 and 2529 Washington Boulevard. The site supports four habitat types consisting of ruderal annual grassland, oak-willow riparian, intermittent stream and developed. Most of the southern part of the site is ruderal annual grassland overgrown with a dense cover of seasonal grasses and weeds. The oak-willow riparian habitat with its intermittent stream flows, located along the north side of the project site, is also overgrown with dense vegetation. Forty-two trees were identified during a tree inventory of the property, and nine trees would be removed (see Attachment 2, sheet C-2). Two additional trees would be relocated. The majority of the existing trees are located within the Washington Creek riparian corridor, which is an area that would not be disturbed by project site development.

A biological resources analysis was prepared for the project site by Olberding Environmental, Inc. (Olberding, 2016). The report discusses the field reconnaissance survey conducted June 8, 2016 and literature review for the purpose of identifying sensitive plant and wildlife species, sensitive habitats, and biological constraints potentially occurring on the project site. The study report is provided as an attachment to this document.

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304

Regulatory Framework

Federal, state, and local regulations that pertain to the proposed project related to biological resources include: • City of Fremont General Plan, Conservation Chapter • City of Fremont Tree Preservation Ordinance • Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act • California Department of Fish and Wildlife laws and regulations • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service laws and regulations • Alameda County Flood Control District laws and requirements

Discussion/Conclusion/Mitigation a, d) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

There are two existing houses and forty-two existing trees on the project site that could provide suitable nesting habitat for some species of native birds or bats. Both houses and nine (of 42) trees will be removed during site development, while two additional on-site trees will be relocated. Removal or relocation of buildings, trees and other vegetation containing nesting birds or bats could result in the abandonment of the nesting effort and, thus, pose a potentially significant impact on migratory birds or sensitive mammal species. Active bird nests are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and regulations overseen by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Special-status Plants: One special-status plant species, Congdon’s tarplant, was determined to have a moderate potential to occur on the Property. This plants potential to occur on the Property was based on the presence of suitable habitats, soil types, and nearby and recent CNDDB occurrences. Suitable habitat for this species occurs within the grassland habitat. The biological report recommends that a rare plant survey be conducted prior to construction.

Special-status Wildlife • Foraging or Nesting Raptor/Passerine Species – A total of five bird species were identified as having potential to occur on the Property. Five species including red-shouldered hawk, red-tailed hawk, white-tailed kite, Cooper’s hawk, and tri-colored blackbird had a high potential to occur in a foraging and nesting capacity. • Special-Status Mammals – The Property offers suitable habitat to support the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat; however, no nests were identified during the survey. This species is presumed absent from the Property. The riparian habitat along the creek and outbuildings on the project site provides potentially suitable roosting habitat for bat species. While no bat species were observed during the June survey, it is possible that bats could utilize the Property in the future. • Special-status Amphibians – California red-legged frog (CRLF) h been identified as having a potential to occur on the subject Property but are unlikely to occur due to proximity of CNDDB occurrences and lack of permanent water. California tiger salamander (CTS) is presumed absent from the Property.

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304

• Special-Status Reptiles – The Alameda whipsnake was identified by the CNDDB as occurring in the vicinity of the Property. An assessment of the Property concluded that the site does not provide habitat to support Alameda whipsnake species. Alameda whipsnake is presumed absent from the Property.

Potential Impacts: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated

To avoid impacts to sensitive plant and wildlife species and habitat the following mitigation measures shall be required:

Mitigation Measure Bio-1: Rare Plant Survey – A rare plant survey of the Property in accordance with CDFW and CNPS guidelines shall be required prior to construction. The survey should be scheduled to coincide with the identified blooming or identification periods for those species having potential to occur (August). Any rare, threatened, or endangered plant species, including but not limited to those listed in Attachment 2, Table 2, should be identified and mapped. If any of these species are found, consultation with the USFWS and/or CDFW would be required regarding appropriate mitigation.

Mitigation Measure Bio-2: Pre-Construction Avian Survey – If project construction-related activities take place during the nesting season (February through August), preconstruction surveys for nesting passerine birds and raptors (birds of prey) within the Property and the large trees within the adjacent riparian area shall be conducted by a competent biologist 14 days prior to the commencement of the tree removal or site grading activities. If any bird listed under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is found to be nesting within the project site or within the area of influence, an adequate protective buffer zone shall be established by a qualified biologist in order to protect the nesting site. This buffer shall be a minimum of 75 feet from the project activities for passerine birds, and a minimum of 200 feet for raptors. The distance shall be determined by a competent biologist based on the site conditions (i.e. - topography, if the nest is in a line of sight of the construction and the sensitivity of the birds nesting). The nest site(s) shall be monitored by a competent biologist periodically to see if the birds are stressed by the construction activities and if the protective buffer needs to be increased. Once the young have fledged and are flying well enough to avoid project construction zones (typically by August), the project can proceed without further regard to the nest site(s).

Mitigation Measure Bio-3: Pre-construction Bat Survey – To avoid “take” of special–status bats, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented prior to the removal of any existing trees or structures on the project site: a) A bat habitat assessment shall be conducted by a qualified bat biologist during seasonal periods of bat activity (mid–February through mid–October – ca. Feb. 15 –Apr. 15, and Aug. 15 – October 30), to determine suitability of each existing structure as bat roost habitat. b) Structures found to have no suitable openings can be considered clear for project activities as long as they are maintained so that new openings do not occur. c) Structures found to provide suitable roosting habitat, but without evidence of use by bats, may be sealed until project activities occur, as recommended by the bat biologist. Structures with openings and exhibiting evidence of use by bats shall be scheduled for humane bat exclusion and eviction, conducted during appropriate seasons, and under supervision of a qualified bat biologist. d) Bat exclusion and eviction shall only occur between February 15 and April 15, and from August 15 through October 30, in order to avoid take of non–volant (non–flying or inactive, either young, or seasonally torpid) individuals. OR A qualified wildlife biologist experienced in surveying for and identifying bat species should survey the portion of the Property with large trees and abandoned structures to determine if any special–status bats reside in the trees or structures. Any special–status bats identified should be removed without harm. Bat houses sufficient to shelter the number of bats removed should be erected in open space areas that would not be disturbed by project development.

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304

Mitigation Measure Bio-4: Pre-construction Amphibian Survey - Due to the limited potential for CRLF to occur along the onsite creek, a pre-construction survey should be performed no more than 48 hours prior to ground disturbance of vegetation removal. A qualified biologist shall survey the project site for CRLF (and other sensitive wildlife species) preceding the commencement of construction activities to verify the absence/presence of the species. Surveys should be performed using the USFWS protocol. b-c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

Results of the biological resource analysis survey conducted by Olberding Environmental (Olberding, 2016) indicate that the project area along Washington Creek is a riparian habitat area with intermittent stream flows that contains wetlands/waters. These wetland/waters may be considered jurisdictional by the Corps, RWQCB or CDFW therefore a Corps jurisdictional delineation of the Property was recommended in the biological report. However, review of site development plans shows that project construction has been designed to remain outside of the CDFW-defined streambed and would fully avoid areas with potential wetland/waters. Therefore, despite disturbance of much of the site, there would be less than significant impacts to riparian or wetland habitat and no mitigation is warranted.

Potential Impact: Less than Significant Mitigation Measure: None Required e-f) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

A total of 42 trees exist on the site, nine of which are proposed for removal from the site and two that would be relocated. The City’s Landscape Architecture Division will review the project plans, including the proposed tree removal and replacement plans, in order to authorize the removal of the trees. The applicant will provide a landscape plan that provides tree replacement in accordance with and as specified within the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance. The proposed project also includes new landscaping for the developed portion of the site. The applicant will be required to replace each tree being removed in accordance with the 1:1 replacement requirement of the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance to the satisfaction of the City Landscape Architect.

Development of the project site as proposed would not conflict with any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan, as none exist that affect the project area.

Potential Impact: No Impact Mitigation Measure: None Required

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:

Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Information ISSUES: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Sources Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 1, 11, a. X historical resource as defined in §15064.57? 26, D Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 1, 11, b. X archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? 26, D Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological 1, 11, c. X resource or site or unique geologic feature? D Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside 1, 11, d. X of formal cemeteries? 26, D

Environmental Setting

The project site consists of one parcel located at 2529 Washington Boulevard which contains two existing vacant and dilapidated single-family dwellings that will be removed as part of site development. The 2.1- acre project site is located in the City of Fremont Mission San Jose Community Plan Area. Currently, the majority of the project site is undeveloped, with Washington Creek along its northern border.

A cultural resources assessment report was prepared for the site by the firm of Basin Research Associates in July 2016 (Basin 2016). That report provides the results of an Information Center records search; reviews pertinent literature and archival information; presents a summary prehistoric and historic context; provides the results of the Native American Heritage Commission's (NAHC) review of the Sacred Lands Inventory and consultation with local Native Americans recommended by the NAHC; presents the results of an archaeological field inventory; and, provides management recommendations.

Regulatory Framework

State and local regulations that pertain to the proposed project related to cultural resources include: • City of Fremont General Plan Land Use and Community Character Chapter (Historic Resources) • Fremont Municipal Code, Title 18, Planning and Zoning, Section 18.175 Historic Resources Ordinance http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Fremont/

Discussion/Conclusion/Mitigation

a-d) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.57? Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

The project site is not known to contain any historical, paleontological or archaeological resources, site structures or objects on the project site or in the general area of the project site based on a review of records, maps, documents, and a field survey conducted in May 2016 for the Cultural Resources Assessment. An historical evaluation of the existing structures on-site was prepared in 2001 and the buildings were also re-evaluated in 2008. Both evaluations determined the two structures lacked historical significance.

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304

Notice of the proposed project was sent on June 15, 2016 to the local California Native American tribes named on the Native American contacts list for Alameda County provided by the NAHC (Native American Heritage Commission) and also to those who have requested notification to allow early consultation. No requests for such consultation were received by the City.

As outlined in the Cultural Resources Assessment, there are no known unique cultural resources, and therefore, no potential for restrictions. However, there is a possibility that unrecorded resources exist on the site which could be unearthed during grading activities or other site disturbance activities. Implementation of Mitigation Measure Cult-1, below, would reduce any potential impacts to such resources to a less-than-significant level:

Potential Impact: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated

Mitigation Measure Cult-1: Discovery of Cultural Resources during Construction – In the event that any human remains or historical or unique archaeological resources are discovered during site development work, the provisions of CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(e) and (f) for notification and evaluation would be followed to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:

Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Information ISSUES: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Sources Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or a. death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based X 1, 5, on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to 6, I Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 1, 5, ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X 6, I 1, 5, iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X 6, I 1, 5, iv) Landslides? X 6, I 1, 5, b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X 6, I, K Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and 1, 5, c. X potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral 6, I, K spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Be located on expansive soil, as defined in California 1, 5, d. X Building Code), creating substantial risks to life or property? 6, I Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems e. X N.A. where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

Environmental Setting

The project site consists of one parcel located at 2529 Washington Boulevard which contains two vacant single-family dwellings that will be removed as part of site development. The 2.1-acre project site is located approximately 0.34 miles northeast of the Hayward fault zone, southern Hayward section (Hayward fault). The following discussion is based in part upon a Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation for the Washington Boulevard Project, prepared for the project by Quantum Geotechnical, Inc. and dated August 29, 2016. Recommendations from a Geotechnical Peer Review of the Project’s Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, dated September 16, 2016 and conducted by Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc., are also incorporated into the discussion below.

According to the project’s geotechnical evaluation report, the San Francisco Bay area region is one of the most seismically active areas in the Country. While seismologists cannot predict earthquake events, the U.S. Geological Survey’s Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities 2015 revises earlier estimates from their 2008 publication providing an estimated rate of earthquakes around magnitude 6.7 that has gone down by about 30 percent. However, in the new study, the estimate for the likelihood that California will experience a magnitude 8 or larger earthquake in the next 30 years has increased from about 4.7% for UCERF2 to about 7.0% for UCERF3. Additionally, there is a 63 percent chance of at least one magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake occurring in the Bay Area region between 2007 and 2036.

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304

The site is not located within a state-mandated "Alquist-Priolo" Earthquake Fault Special Studies Zone and therefore the likelihood of fault surface rupture occurring on site is non-existent. However, the site is located near active faults. The Hayward Fault is located 0.34 miles to the west; the Calaveras Fault 4.87 miles to the east; and the San Andreas Fault 18.7 miles also to the west.

Regulatory Framework

State and local regulations that pertain to the proposed project related to geology and soils include: • City of Fremont General Plan Safety Chapter (Seismic and Geologic Hazards) • City of Fremont Municipal Code (Building Safety) • California Building Code (2013)

Discussion/Conclusion/Mitigation

a-e) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving a major seismic event? Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- site or off-site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in the California Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property?

According to California State Geologic and Seismic Hazard Zones maps, the project site is located in an area susceptible to earthquake-induced landslide. Also, as with any new project constructed in the San Francisco Bay Area, the development could be subject to strong ground shaking during a major seismic event.

Preliminary grading is expected to consist of placement of approximately 1 to 2 feet of fill along the southern part of the development and up to 10 to 12 feet of fill at the northern end of the development area, where the retaining wall is planned. The building structures are expected to be three stories in height, of wood frame construction and supported on a post-tensioned slab foundation.

The National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), formerly known as the U.S. Soil Conservation Service), reports one soil type covers the entire property: 103: Azule clay loam, 9 to 30 percent slopes, eroded – The Azule series consists of moderately deep, well drained soils that formed in material weathered from consolidated alluvium and from soft shale and fine grained sandstone. Azule soils are on hills from 100 to 2,000 feet in elevation. The composition of this soil type within the Property consists of 85 percent Azule and similar soils and 3 percent of minor components including Hillgate silt loam (3%). Typically, Azule soils exhibit medium to rapid runoff and slow permeability (see Attachment 1, Figure 5 – Soils Map). Furthermore, all proposed structures must be designed in conformance with geotechnical and soil stability standards as required by the 2013 California Building Code (CBC). Conformance to the recommendations of the geotechnical report and all applicable 2013 CBC standards would reduce safety impacts to the dwellings and their occupants to a less-than-significant level.

Based on the results of the project site assessment, the proposed project would not create significant impacts related to Geology and Soils, provided that recommendations in the project’s Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Geotechnical Peer Review and subsequent geotechnical reports are performed. All grading, foundations, and structures for the proposed project would be required to be engineered and designed in conformance with applicable geotechnical and soil stability standards as required by current

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304

California Building Code (CBC) at the time of building permit issuance. Conformance to the applicable CBC standards would reduce safety impacts to the structures, their occupants, and the adjacent properties to a less-than-significant level. These recommendations provide typical project site requirements for a project such as that proposed and are, therefore, not mitigation measures. Geotechnical project requirements, including specific construction techniques regarding the retaining walls along the south side of the creek, will be incorporated into the City’s Conditions of Approval for the proposed project.

Additionally, an erosion control plan would be required with plans submitted for grading and/or building permits to ensure that the project would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil during grading and construction activities. As such, impacts associated with geology and soils would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Potential Impact: Less than Significant Mitigation: None Required

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304

VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS - Would the project:

Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Information ISSUES: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Sources Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or 1, 2, a. indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the X 21, 22 environment? Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an 1, 2, b. agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of X 21, 22 greenhouse gases?

Background With the passage of the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32), California acknowledged the role of greenhouse gases (GHG) in global warming and took action to reduce GHG emission levels. AB 32 set a statewide goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. In doing so, it contemplated economic expansion and growth of population to 44 million people by 2020. It called for the state’s Air Resources Board (CARB) to prepare a Scoping Plan encompassing all major sectors of GHG emissions for achieving reductions consistent with AB 32’s goals. The Scoping Plan, adopted in December 2008, creates an overarching framework for meeting the GHG reduction goal of returning to 1990 emissions levels by 2020.

GHG analysis uses carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), measured in metric tons, to adjust for the different warming potential of a wide range of greenhouse gases, not just exclusively CO2. The state 2005 GHG emission inventory was 479 million metrics tons of CO2e. CARB projected that under business-as-usual conditions (no reduction effort) GHG emissions would grow to 596.4 million metric tons of CO2e by the year 2020. According to the Scoping Plan, reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels requires cutting approximately 30 percent from the business-as-usual emission levels projected for 2020, or about 15 percent from today’s levels. The target amount for the 2020 goal is an emission level of no more than 427 million metric tons of CO2e (the 1990 levels). Stated another way, on a per capita basis, this means reducing current annual emissions of 14 tons of CO2e for every person in California down to about 10 tons per person by 2020.

Different regional and state agencies are in the process of adopting thresholds and methodologies to analyze GHG emission impacts. Currently, there is no one standard accepted methodology or practice that is universally applied to account for project-level emissions. Meanwhile, the City completed a community inventory for its 2005 GHG emissions level using current ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives) methodology. The City’s 2005 baseline inventoried emission level is 1,670,838 metric tons of CO2e, which equals a 7.9 tons per capita rate.

Regulatory Framework

State and local regulations that pertain to the proposed project related to cultural resources include: • City of Fremont General Plan Sustainability and Conservation Chapters • State Assembly Bill (AB) 32 • California Green Building Code (Mandatory)

Discussion/Conclusion/Mitigation

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304

a-b) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Would the project conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Because of the broad context and setting of the potential impacts of contributing to global climate change, the assessment of project-level emissions looks at whether a project’s emissions would significantly affect the ability of the State to reach its AB 32 goals. In considering whether a project’s emissions are substantial and cumulatively considerable, the City considers the direct and indirect emissions of the operation of a project through its energy consumption and traffic generation, which is a commonly accepted approach for assessing local emission levels. For initial project-level screening, the City uses the BAAQMD’s screening criteria and thresholds for determining whether a project could a significant impact in relation to Green House Gas (GHG) emissions.

The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines contain methodology and thresholds of significance for evaluating the potential impacts of GHG emissions from land use projects. BAAQMD thresholds were developed specifically for the Bay Area after considering the latest GHG inventory and the effects of AB 32 scoping plan measures that would reduce emissions. BAAQMD intends to achieve GHG reductions from new land use projects to close the gap between projected regional emissions with AB 32 scoping plan measures and AB 32 targets. BAAQMD suggests applying GHG efficiency thresholds to projects with emissions of 1,100 metric tons (MT) of CO2e or greater per year. Projects that have emissions below 1,100 MT of CO2e per year are considered to result in less than significant GHG emissions. Land use projects with emissions above the 1,100 MT per year threshold would then be subject to the GHG efficiency threshold of 4.6 MT of CO2e per year per capita. Projects with emissions above the threshold would be considered to have an impact, which cumulatively would be significant. At 14 single family dwelling units, the project would be well below the screening criteria for this type of land use as shown below:

Land Use Type Operational Criteria Operational GHG Construction-related Pollutant Screening Size Screening Size Screening Size Single-family 325 du (NOX) 56 du 114 du (ROG)

Thus the project would not be expected to exceed the threshold of 1,100 MT per year of GHG emissions.

Furthermore, the project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the site and development of this nature and density were anticipated and analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR. The DRAFT General Plan Update had the potential to increase the number of future residents and jobs within the City of Fremont, thereby directly and indirectly resulting in the increase of GHG emissions. However, the expected emissions of the estimated 49,496 new residents and 68,100 new jobs anticipated by the General Plan equated to 5.57 mtons of CO2e per service population, which is below the threshold established by the BAAQMD of 6.6 mtons of CO2e per service population. This increase in GHG emissions associated with implementation of the DRAFT General Plan Update was considered less than significant.

Because the Washington Place proposes residential development that is addressed within the City’s General Plan, the project would not conflict with relevant GHG plans or policies.

Potential Impact: Less than Significant Mitigation: None Required

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304

VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project:

Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Information ISSUES: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Sources Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 1, 6, a. through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous X A, B materials? Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions 6, A, b. X involving the release of hazardous materials into the B, C environment? Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely 6, , A, c. hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter X B, C mile of an existing or proposed school? Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code 1, 6, , d. X A, B, Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant C hazard to the public or the environment? For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a e. public airport or public use airport, would the project result in X NA a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would f. the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or X NA working in the project area? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an g. adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation X 1, 6, 7 plan? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where 27 h. X wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

Environmental Setting

The following discussion of hazards and hazardous materials is largely based upon two project reports: • Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of 2529 Washington Boulevard, Fremont, California. Prepared by AEI Consultants, dated August 27, 2015. • Limited Phase II Subsurface Investigation of 2529 Washington Boulevard, Fremont, California. Prepared by AEI Consultants, dated September 28, 2015.

The 2.1-acre project site consists of one parcel located at 2529 Washington Boulevard which contains two existing single-family dwellings that will be removed as part of site development. The Phase I Environmental site assessment (see page iv) states: “Based upon a review of historical sources, the subject property was identified to consist of multiple residences and structures, and an agricultural orchard from at least 1939 to around 1968, at which time the orchard was seemingly abandoned. From 1968-1993, multiple structures on the property were demolished and only two residential structures remained, which

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304 are the current structures on the property” (AEI, August 2015). Currently, the majority of the project site is undeveloped, with Washington Creek along its northern border.

Regulatory Framework

State and local regulations that pertain to the proposed project related to hazards and hazardous materials include: • City of Fremont General Plan Land Use and Safety Chapters • City of Fremont Fire Code • Department of Toxic and Substances Control (DTSC) Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List

Discussion/Conclusion/Mitigation a-b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was performed and report was prepared (AEI, August 2015). As detailed in the Phase I ESA, the property was used for agricultural purposes from at least 1939 to at least 1968. Based on the known agricultural use, the potential exists that agricultural chemicals, such as pesticides, were used onsite. Therefore, a limited Phase II evaluation of site soils was conducted in order to determine if the property has been adversely impacted by the use of agricultural chemicals (AEI, September 2015). The results of this investigation were compared to the December 2013 Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for residential land use, as established by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board.

During the Phase II investigation, it was initially indicated that dieldrin was present at one location in both the shallow and deeper soil samples, at levels which slightly exceeded the most conservative RWQCB - established levels for leaching to groundwater. Based on the depth to groundwater, over 20 feet below ground surface, it is unlikely that leaching of dieldrin to groundwater would be a concern. While the ESL for leaching was exceeded, the risk from direct exposure ESL for dieldrin, a more relevant level with regard to land development, was not exceeded in any of the samples. Based on data obtained at the site and proposed redevelopment of the property, the risk to human health is considered negligible and no mitigation is required during the planned construction or with regard to habitation following construction.

Potential Impact: Less than Significant Mitigation: None Required c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

The proposed residential development would not involve the emission or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. Although there is a Montessori Children’s House 1,500 feet to the east (on the far side of I-680), and Mission Valley Elementary School is approximately 1,160 ft northwest of the site (measured boundary to boundary), no hazardous emissions or waste would be handled within one-quarter mile (1,320 feet) of an existing or proposed school.

Potential Impact: No Impact

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304

Mitigation: None Required

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

The project site is not listed on the Department of Toxic Substance Control’s Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese List). Thus, no impact would result.

Potential Impact: No Impact Mitigation: None Required

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

The project site is not located within an airport land use plan nor are there any public or private airports within City limits. Thus, no impact would result.

Potential Impact: No Impact Mitigation: None Required

f-g) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

The proposed project site, on the north side of Washington Boulevard, is in Local Response Area (LRA) Unzoned. The site is not located in the Fremont Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, although areas on the south side of the Washington Boulevard are within that designated area.

The proposed project would not interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans and would be designed to meet all applicable federal, state and local fire safety codes. Furthermore, project is not located in an area susceptible to wildland fires. For these reasons, no significant impact to life safety would result from the project, and no project-specific mitigation is required.

As discussed in the GP EIR, implementation of the General Plan would result in denser development within Fremont and would have the potential to change circulation patterns which could impact emergency evacuation or response plans. However, the General Plan includes policies and implementation measures designed to provide for sufficient emergency response in Fremont. Therefore, potential interference with an adopted emergency response or emergency evacuation plan would be considered a less than significant impact. The City of Fremont’s Disaster Management Operations Plan (DMOP) was developed in compliance with State requirements and also meets the requirements of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as the City’s local hazard mitigation plan. Fremont’s DMOP provides policies and procedures for the evacuation, dispersal or relocation of people from hazardous areas during disasters to less threatened areas. The plan also describes the organization and responsibilities for conducting movement operations. The need for evacuation routes and the appropriate routes will vary for each type of disaster. The proposed project would be located on an infill site and developed in conformance with the site’s General Plan land use designation of Residential Low;

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304

therefore, it would not impair or interfere with the adopted emergency response or emergency evacuation plan and no impact would result. With the implementation of the aforementioned standard project requirements, the project would avoid impacts related to fire safety and emergency response.

Potential Impact: No Impact Mitigation: None Required

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304

IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project:

Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Information ISSUES: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Sources 1, 6, 14, Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 15, a. X requirements? 16, B, C, I

Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the 1, 6 b. local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pro- X existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or 1, 6, 14, area, including through the alteration of the course of a c. X 15, stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial 16, J erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a 1, 6, 14, d. stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of X 15, 16 surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the 1, 6, e. capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems X 14, 15, 16 or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 1, 14, 15, f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X 16, B, C Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped 1, 6, g. on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate X 17 Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which 1, 6, h. X 17 would impede or redirect flood flows? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, 1, 6, i. injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a X 17 result of the failure of a levee or dam? 1, 6, j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X 17

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304

Environmental Setting

The project site consists of one parcel located at 2529 Washington Boulevard which contains two existing single-family dwellings that would be removed as part of site development. The 2.1-acre project site is located in the City of Fremont Mission San Jose Community Plan Area. Currently, the majority of the project site is undeveloped, with Washington Creek located along its northern border.

The information below incorporates information from a 1995 Creek and Watershed Map of Fremont and Vicinity prepared by Janet M. Sowers, William Lettis & Associates, Inc. that shows the historical wetlands as researched by the San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI 1995).

Regulatory Framework

Federal, state and local regulations that pertain to the proposed project related to hydrology and water quality include: • City of Fremont General Plan Conservation Chapter (Water Quality) • California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, Alameda Countywide NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit, R2-2015-0049, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit No. NPDES PERMIT No. CAS612008, dated November 19, 2015 • Federal Clean Water Act 1987

Discussion/Conclusion/Mitigation a-c, f) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pro-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

The proposed development would not violate any water quality standards, deplete groundwater supplies, or substantially degrade water quality. Washington Creek would remain unaltered. The project would be required to connect to the existing public sanitary sewer and storm drain systems that serve the area, and would obtain its water from the existing public water main serving the site. The Alameda County Water District has confirmed that it is capable of meeting the project’s water demands without significantly impacting the District’s supplies or its distribution system prior to site development. Because the project would create in excess of 10,000 square feet of impervious surface area, it would be subject to the NPDES C.3 requirements of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit, which regulates the treatment of stormwater runoff on the site.

After development, the 2.1-acre (approximately 91,476 square feet) project site would consist of approximately 34,600 square feet of impervious surface roads and buildings, with the balance (56,876 square feet) consisting of landscaped areas or undeveloped. As such, the applicant would be required to incorporate low impact development (LID) techniques to treat stormwater runoff from all on-site impervious surfaces in bio-retention areas before it is discharged into the public storm drain system.

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304

Compliance with the applicable C.3 requirements would ensure that minimal impacts to water quality would result from the project; therefore, no mitigation is required.

Potential Impact: Less than significant impact Mitigation: None Required d-e) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

The proposed project would not substantially alter existing drainage patterns or result in the alteration of the course of any water body. Drainage from the project would be directed into a landscape-based treatment area located within the development (see response to questions IX, a-c and f, above), and ultimately discharge into the public storm drain system via a new piped system that would be constructed on the site to serve the development. Per Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements, the project would be required to implement hydromodification to temporarily store and meter its runoff using the Bay Area Hydrology Model (BAHM) to size its storage capacity in order to accommodate 10 percent of a two-year storm event up to a 10-year storm event. Implementation of hydromodification using BAHM in accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit would ensure that the project would not exceed the capacity of the storm drainage system serving the area. Therefore, no impact would result.

Potential Impact: Less than Significant Mitigation: None Required g-j) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Place within a 100- year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

The project site is located within Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Panel No. 06001C0433G, effective August 3, 2009. According to this FIRM, the project site is located within an Unshaded X zone and is, therefore, outside of the 100-year flood zone. The project site is also not situated within a Special Flood Hazard Area or an area that would be subject to inundation as a result of failure of a dam, levee, or reservoir, or as a result of a seiche, tsunami or mudflow. As such, no flood related impacts would occur.

Potential Impact: No Impact Mitigation: None Required

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304

X. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:

Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Information ISSUES: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Sources a. Physically divide an established community? X 2, 3, A Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project 2, 3, b. (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, X 11 local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or c. X N/A natural community conservation plan?

Environmental Setting

The project site consists of one parcel located at 2529 Washington Boulevard that contains two existing single-family dwellings which would be removed as part of site development. The 2.1-acre project site is located in the City of Fremont Mission San Jose Community Plan Area. Currently, the majority of the project site is undeveloped, with Washington Creek along its northern border.

The General Plan designation for the site allows up to 8.7 dwelling units per acre. The proposal envisions 14 duet homes at a density of 8.7 dwelling units per acre that provides ample common open space and site amenities. The proposed project involves rezoning to establish a new Preliminary and Precise Planned District. Approval of a Vesting Tentative Tract Map and review of the Private Street is also required to allow development of the proposed subdivision. The Project would require approval by the City’s Planning Commission and City Council.

Regulatory Framework

State and local regulations that pertain to the proposed project related to land use and planning include: • City of Fremont General Plan Land Use and Community Character Chapters • City of Fremont Municipal Code Title VIII - Planning and Zoning, Subdivision, and Grading

Discussion/Conclusion/Mitigation a-c) Would the project physically divide an established community? Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

The proposed project would not physically divide an established community in that it would be located in an area of the City near existing residential developments, and along a major boulevard that has residential subdivisions on both sides. Therefore, it would not introduce an incompatible land use to the area.

The subject property is designated Residential – Low, which permits a density range of 2.3 to 8.7 dwelling units per acre in the City’s General Plan. The proposed density of the project is 8.7 units per acre, consistent with the General Plan land use designation. The site abuts single-family residential

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304

development to the west, northwest and north of the Washington Creek, as well as to the south of Washington Boulevard. All of the surrounding residences are developed with either one- or two-story structures, and designated Residential – Low, similar to the project site, that would allow 2.3 to 8.7 dwelling units per acre in the General Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the development intensity envisioned for the site in the General Plan and surrounding uses.

Washington Creek, an intermittent stream that flows along the northern edge of the property, would remain as vegetated open space. The eastern portion of the property, in the direction of the I-680 southbound off ramp, is held in a Caltrans slope and drainage easement. The Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District owns property to the northeast. These properties would not be developed with structures and therefore would provide an open space buffer.

The proposed units would be three stories, but due to the slope of the site would appear two-story at the street level. This would be comparable with the height of surrounding existing residential development. The proposed duet homes would be set back from all of the nearest residences which would minimize visual impacts of the new units on the adjacent dwellings. As such, the proposed project would not physically divide the neighborhood and would be compatible with surrounding existing development.

The proposed townhome project would not conflict with the City’s General Plan policies or land use regulations. In order to comply with the City’s zoning ordinance, the proposed project has applied for Planned District rezoning which allows for the private road.

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304

XI. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:

Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Information ISSUES: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Sources Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource a. that would be of value to the region and the residents of the X 8 state? Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important b. mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general X 8 plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

Environmental Setting

The project site consists of one parcel totaling about 2.1 acres located at 2529 Washington Boulevard and contains two existing single-family dwellings which would be removed as part of site development. Currently, the majority of the project site is undeveloped, with a creek on its northern border. The site was previously used for rural residences and does not appear to have been used to extract mineral resources in the past.

Regulatory Framework

State and local regulations that pertain to the proposed project related to mineral resources include: • City of Fremont General Plan Conservation Chapter • Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) 1975, California Department of Conservation

Discussion/Conclusion/Mitigation a-b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

According to local and state mineral resources maps, there are no known mineral resources of importance to the state or region on the site or within the surrounding area. Therefore, no potentially significant impacts would result.

Potential Impact: No Impact Mitigation: None Required

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304

XII. NOISE - Would the project result in:

Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Information ISSUES: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Sources Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess 1, 2, a. of standards established in the local general plan or noise X 3, 9, F ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive 1, 3, b. X 9, F groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in 1, 3, c. X 9, F the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise 1, 3, d. levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the X 9, F project? For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a e. public airport or public use airport, would the project expose X N/A people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would f. the project expose people residing or working in the project X N/A area to excessive noise levels?

Environmental Setting

The following noise section is largely based upon an Environmental Noise Analysis for the Washington Boulevard Residential Project, City of Fremont, California, prepared by J.C. Brennan & Associates, Inc. and dated June 22, 2016. The 2.1-acre project site consists of one parcel located on the northern side of Washington Boulevard that is located about 400 feet west of the I-680 southbound off-ramp. Currently, the majority of the project site is undeveloped, with Washington Creek along its northern border. The noise consultant conducted continuous hourly ambient noise level measurements for a period of 24-hours on the project site on May 9th and 10th, 2016. The report indicates that the existing noise environment at the project site is defined primarily by the roadway traffic associated with Washington Boulevard. Based upon field observations, and the noise measurement data described in the report, I-680 is depressed relative to the project site, and based upon shielding from the overpass and existing sound wall along the off-ramp, the primary noise source at the project site is Washington Boulevard traffic.

Regulatory Framework

State and local regulations that pertain to the proposed project related to noise include: • City of Fremont General Plan Safety Chapter (Noise and Vibration) • City of Fremont Municipal Code • California Building Code (2013)

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304

Discussion/Conclusion/Mitigation

a-c) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Exposure of persons to a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

In accordance with 2011 Fremont General Plan Policy 10-8.1, the goal for maximum acceptable outdoor noise level for single-family and multi-family residential uses is an Ldn of 60 dB(A). This goal would be applied where outdoor use is a major consideration (e.g. backyards in single-family and common recreation areas in multi-family) and would not normally be applied to small decks or porches. However, when the City determines that providing an outdoor Ldn of 60 dB(A) or lower cannot be achieved after application of appropriate mitigations, an Ldn of 65 dB(A) may be permitted at the discretion of the City Council .

The City’s General Plan Policy also states that indoor noise levels for all rooms shall not exceed an Ldn of 45 dB(A) in new housing units and requires preparation of a noise insulation study, conforming to the methodology of the State Building Code, for all new housing, exposed to an exterior Ldn of 60 dB(A) or greater and submittal to the Building Department prior to issuance of permits.

Based upon review of the project site plans and elevations, the project homes would include porches which face Washington Boulevard and a common outdoor activity area at the rear of the site. The predicted Washington Boulevard traffic noise levels (see Brennan Noise Assessment, Table 6), will exceed the City of Fremont exterior noise level standard of 60 dB Ldn at the porches of the first row of buildings. As stated in the policy, this standard would not be applicable to the porches as outdoor use would not be a major consideration. The standard would apply to the common open space area at the rear of the site (behind the guest parking spaces), which is intended for outdoor use by all residents of the development. The predicted Washington Boulevard traffic noise levels would comply with the City of Fremont exterior noise level standard of 60 dB Ldn at the common outdoor recreation area.

The noise study provided interior noise calculations to assess the project’s ability to achieve interior noise level criterion and determined that windows with a specified Sound Transmission Class (STC) can be used to reduce interior noise impacts to acceptable levels. The noise assessment determined that 30 STC rated windows would address the instantaneous noise events that would take the interior noise to 50 dB(A) on an occasional basis (see Brennan Noise report, page 11). The 30 STC rated windows would also provide an Ldn of 45 dB(A) for the sleeping rooms of the homes.

Vibration: The vibration criteria for long-term impacts to project residents are generally applied to projects adjacent to railroad lines, and are not applicable to this project.

Potential Impact: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Implementation of Mitigation Measure Noise-1, below, would reduce any potential impacts associated with noise to less-than-significant levels.

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304

1b. Windows of bedrooms shall use windows with a STC rating of 30 as a means of complying with the maximum ("instantaneous) interior noise level criteria, 1c. Units shall include air conditioning units to allow the residents to close windows and doors for acoustical isolation. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

Development of the project would result in a temporary increase in noise levels during daytime hours, particularly from diesel-powered earth-moving equipment and other heavy construction machinery. All construction-related activities would be required to comply with the noise standards contained in the City of Fremont’s Municipal Code for projects within 500-feet of residences and residential neighborhoods, which would limit such activities to certain times of the day and week to reduce noise impacts on adjacent properties. These restrictions are: • Monday-Friday, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. • Saturday and Holidays, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. • Sunday, no construction activity allowed The above construction hours would ensure that potentially loud construction activities would occur during daylight hours when other short-term noise impacts from such sources as diesel-powered vehicles, leaf blowers, school playgrounds and other nearby construction work would typically occur.

As for construction-related vibration, the site will receive fill in a manner used for standard grading projects, where imported soil will be trucked in, spread using a grader, and compacted using a sheepsfoot or equivalent compactor. The building foundations will be post-tensioned slabs and any retaining walls will be either trenched spread footings or drilled piers. There will be no pile driving or other vibration inducing building methods used therefore levels of vibration during project construction will be less than significant. Potential Impact: Less than Significant Mitigation: None Required

e-f) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

There are no public or private airports located in the City or vicinity. No impact would result.

Potential Impact: No Impact Mitigation: None Required

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304

XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:

Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Information ISSUES: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Sources Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and a. X 4, A businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, b. necessitating the construction of replacement housing X 4, A elsewhere? Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the c. X 4, A construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

Environmental Setting

The project site consists of one parcel totaling about 2.1 acres located at 2529 Washington Boulevard and contains two vacant single-family dwellings which would be removed as part of site development. Currently, the majority of the project site is undeveloped, with Washington Creek along its northern border.

Regulatory Framework

Local regulations that pertain to the proposed project related to population and housing include: • City of Fremont General Plan Land Use and Housing Chapters (referencing City Housing Element, 2015)

Discussion/Conclusion/Mitigation

a-c) Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

The proposed project is consistent with the residential density prescribed for the property by the City’s General Plan. As such, it would not result in unanticipated growth in an area of the City where residential growth has not already been planned for. In addition, the project site is surrounded by existing single- family residential development, and would therefore not require the extension of new infrastructure that could induce additional population growth in the area.

Furthermore, the site currently contains two vacant, single-family dwellings that would be removed. Therefore, the project would not displace residents. As such, the project would not have a significant impact on the area’s current population or housing stock and no mitigation is required.

Potential Impact: No Impact Mitigation: None Required

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304

XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES - Would the project:

Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Information ISSUES: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Sources Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the a. construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? X 3, 10 Police protection? X 3, 10 Schools? X 3, 10 Parks? X 3, 10 Other public facilities? X 1, 10

Environmental Setting

Regulatory Framework

Local regulations that pertain to the proposed project related to public services include: • City of Fremont General Plan Public Facilities Chapter • City of Fremont Municipal Code

Discussion/Conclusion/Mitigation a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: fire, police, schools, parks or other public facilities?

On September 3, 1991, the City Council passed resolutions implementing the levying of Development Impact Fees for all new development within the City of Fremont. These fees are required of any new development for which a building permit is issued on or after December 1, 1991. The concept of the impact fee program is to fund and sustain improvements that are needed as a result of new development as stated in the General Plan and other policy documents within the fee program. Development Impact Fees fall into the following categories: Traffic Impact Fees, Park Dedication and Park Facilities In-Lieu Fees, Capital Facilities Fees, and Fire Service Fees. The proposed project would be required to pay all applicable impact fees prior to issuance of a building permit as a standard project requirement.

The proposed development is located in an area of the City where public facilities and services needed to serve the project are already in place. The applicable Development Impact Fees that would be collected in the amounts required for each type of public service would be sufficient to continue to offset the project’s impacts to those services. As such, no impacts to public facilities or services would result, and no mitigation is required.

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304

Schools: The proposed project would generate students that would attend schools within the Fremont Unified School District (FUSD). Under California law, the payment by a developer of school impact fees associated with a proposed development is all that the City may legally require to mitigate any impact that such development would have on the facilities of the local school district. FUSD collects both Level I and Level II school impact fees for residential development. Proof of payment of all required school impact fees to FUSD must be provided before issuance of a building permit for the proposed project, as a standard project requirement.

Potential Impact: Less Than Significant Impact Mitigation: None Required

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304

XV. RECREATION - Would the project:

Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Information ISSUES: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Sources Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that 1, 2, a. X substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur 3, 12 or be accelerated? Does the project include recreational facilities or require the b. construction or expansion of recreational facilities which X 1, A might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

Environmental Setting

The City of Fremont maintains approximately 1,148 acres of parkland, spread over 53 parks, which provides recreational facilities to the community. In addition, residents and community members also have access to parks and trail systems maintained by other agencies, including: the East Bay Regional Parks, the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge, the San Francisco Bay Trail, and other recreational trails. The City also operates other recreational facilities including five community centers, various sport facilities, a water park, and an art gallery.

There are eleven City parks located within two miles of the project site, as listed below. These parks provide a range of recreational facilities 1. Phillip Sauer Park located 850 feet southwest. (very small neighborhood park) 2. Mission San Jose Park located 0.8 miles northeast. 3. Fremont Central Park (w/ Lake Elizabeth) located 0.9 miles northwest 4. Gomes Park located 1.15 miles north. 5. Irvington Plaza Park located 0.8 miles west. 6. Irvington Community Park located 1.2 miles southwest. 7. Grimmer Park located 0.8 miles south southwest. 8. Old Mission Park located 1.1 miles southeast. 9. Rix Park located 1.82 miles southwest. 10. Blacow Park located 1.6 miles west southwest. 11. Marshall Park located 2 miles west southwest.

Regulatory Framework

Local regulations that pertain to the proposed project related to recreation include: • City of Fremont General Plan Parks and Recreation Chapter

Discussion/Conclusion/Mitigation a-b) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

Construction of the proposed development could result in a slight increase in demand for local and

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304

regional park and recreation facilities; however payment of the required in-lieu park dedication and park facility fees for new residential development as described in Section XIV, Public Services, above, would offset the increased demand in accordance with applicable City ordinances and reduce the impacts to such facilities to a less-than-significant level. Furthermore, the proposal for 14 new duet homes would not require the construction or expansion of new facilities, only the payment of in-lieu park dedication fees in accordance with the applicable City ordinances.

Potential Impact: Less than Significant Mitigation: None Required

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304

XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project:

Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Information ISSUES: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Sources Exceed the capacity of the existing circulation system, based on an applicable measure of effectiveness (as designated in a general plan policy, ordinance, etc.), taking into account 1, 3, a. X all relevant components of the circulation system, including 7, 28 but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to a level of service standard 1, 3, b. standards and travel demand measures, or other standards X 7, 28 established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an c. increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in X 1, 3, 7 substantial safety risks? Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., d. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses X 1, 3, 7 (e.g., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? X 1, 3, 6 Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting f. X 1, 3, 7 alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?

Environmental Setting

The project site is located on the north side of Washington Boulevard between the intersections of Washington Boulevard and Olive Avenue, and the intersection of Washington Boulevard with the I-680 southbound off-ramp. The unsignalized intersection with Olive Avenue is located about 1,700 feet to the west of the project’s single proposed access, and the signalized southbound off ramp intersection is approximately 400 feet to the east. The Average Daily Total Volume (ADTV) of vehicle traffic in this 4- lane section of Washington Boulevard is 23,172 vehicles. There are curbs, sidewalks and bike lanes along Washington Boulevard, which is considered to be a primary arterial in the City.

The Fremont General Plan identifies within its Mobility Chapter that Level of Service (LOS) for signalized intersections of LOS D is the transportation operations threshold of significance for traffic impacts. Level of Service D represents a moderate amount of vehicle delay during the peak hour of intersection operations. For intersections operating at LOS E or F, an average delay increase of 4 seconds or more due to project traffic would be considered a significant impact. The General Plan EIR is a program-level EIR that includes analysis of potential transportation impacts related to the land use designations, policies, and goals provided in the General Plan. The cumulative analysis in the General Plan EIR assumed the project site would be built out with the density and uses allowed in the Low Density Residential (2.3 – 8.7 dwelling units per acre) district. The proposed 14-unit duet home project at a density of 8.7 dwelling units per acre conforms to the General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential (2.3 – 8.7 dwelling units per acre) for the project site.

As for access, the property currently has two driveway approaches, however the proposed design would eliminate one of the two existing driveways on Washington Boulevard, which is consistent with General Plan policy to limit access on primary arterials for safety and efficiency. This design eliminates the

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304

driveway approach to the east (closest to the off‐ramp serving I‐680) which should provide a safer traffic interface. Also, the developer plans to relocate access through the property to the east which connects to an existing fire and/or maintenance road. The property is not encumbered with any recorded access easement however, an existing fence line and dirt road indicates access by Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and Caltrans to their adjoining land in the past.

Regulatory Framework

Local regulations that pertain to the proposed project related to transportation/traffic include: • City of Fremont General Plan Mobility Chapter • City of Fremont Municipal Code – Site Design Standards

Discussion/Conclusion/Mitigation

a-b) Would the project exceed the capacity of the existing circulation system, based on an applicable measure of effectiveness (as designated in a general plan policy, ordinance, etc.), taking into account all relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Would the project conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to a level of service standard standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

Access to and from the project site would be via right turn-in and right-turn out movements from Washington Boulevard to a new private street (see Vesting Tentative Tract Map Sheets 1 through 7) that would be built to serve the 14 duet homes. Traffic entering the site from Washington Boulevard would travel on the new paved private street approximately 80 feet before encountering the first private garage within the proposed project, such that cars backing out of duet home garages within the project would not conflict with queuing of vehicles entering or exiting from the arterial roadway.

The segment of Washington Boulevard in front of the project site currently carries an average daily traffic volume of 23,172 vehicles. The project’s 14 duet homes would add an estimated PM peak hour volume of 14 vehicles. PM peak hour traffic generation is one of the primary factors in determining if significant traffic impacts would occur as a result of a proposed project, as this is typically the time when most roadways are at their busiest and when emissions levels are highest.

The proposed project would contribute an estimated 140 net new weekday trips, 14 AM peak hour trips, and 14 PM peak hour trips to the local roadway network. It is the City’s practice to conduct a traffic study if the net peak hour project trip increase exceeds 100 new PM peak hour trips, which is consistent with Alameda County Transportation Commission requirements for analyzing project impacts. As the proposed project development peak hour trips are estimated below 100 new peak hour trips, a traffic impact analysis was not conducted. The proposed project would be consistent with the development intensity and anticipated vehicle trips analyzed in the General Plan EIR and therefore would not result in an increase in the number of cumulative trips previously analyzed in the City’s General Plan EIR.

The Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) requires the evaluation and assessment of regional roadways within the study area that are designated as Congestion Management Program (CMP) and Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) facilities. The segments of I-680 in proximity to the project site are CMP roadway system facilities identified for analysis within the study area. ACTC Land Use Analysis Program Transportation Impact Analysis Requirements state that the ACTC would review land use projects that would cause a net increase of 100 or more p.m. peak-hour trips. Net increase is

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304 determined with respect to existing uses at the project site (if the project entails a General Plan Amendment). The proposed project does not entail a General Plan Amendment.

The proposed project is consistent with new residential development anticipated for this site in the 2011 General Plan. The General Plan EIR analyzed potential traffic impacts resulting from new development and did not identify potentially significant impacts in the vicinity of the site. Additionally, the General Plan promotes design and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) policies to encourage vehicle trip reduction to lessen impacts on the transportation system. These include facilitating pedestrian connectivity (3-2.3C).The proposed project represents a less than significant impact to the local roadway network and would not conflict with an applicable congestion management program.

Potential Impact: Less than Significant Mitigation: None Required c-d) Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

The proposed project would not have an impact on air traffic patterns as there are no airports in Fremont. The design of the proposed project, including driveway improvements, would be consistent with City development standards for traffic safety and accessibility purposes. Vehicular access to the project site would be provided via a single private street that would provide access to and from Washington Boulevard and thus, no impacts would result.

Potential Impact: No Impact Mitigation: None Required e-f) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?

Emergency vehicle access would be provided for the project over the proposed private street, as shown on Vesting Tentative Tract Map sheet C7. No sharp curves or dangerous intersections would be created by the project, and the new private street would be designed in accordance with the City’s standard details for traffic safety and emergency vehicle access. The proposed project has been reviewed by the Fremont Fire Department and conforms to City requirements. For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to emergency access and impacts would be less than significant.

Furthermore, the proposal does not feature any other unusual design elements that could pose a substantial safety hazard to vehicular or bicycle traffic or pedestrians. The project would also not conflict with any plans, policies or programs supporting alternative transportation in that it would not obstruct or otherwise impact any transit stops or bicycle lanes.

Potential Impact: No Impact Mitigation: None Required

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304

XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project:

Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Information ISSUES: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Sources Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 2, 10, a. X Regional Water Quality Control Board? B, C Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing b. X 2, 10 facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the 2, 10, c. X construction of which could cause significant environmental 15 effects? Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project d. from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or X 2, 10 expanded entitlements needed? Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has e. X 2, 10 adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to f. X 2, 10 accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations g. X 2, 10 related to solid waste?

Environmental Setting

The site is located in an urbanized area located directly west of Washington Boulevard and Highway 680, where all public utilities and services needed to serve the project are already in place. The project would connect to existing public utilities via underground connections within the Washington Boulevard public right-of-way.

Regulatory Framework

Local regulations that pertain to the proposed project related to utilities and service systems include: • City of Fremont General Plan Public Facilities Chapter • City of Fremont Municipal Code

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304

Discussion/Conclusion/Mitigation

a-e) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Would the project require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?

The proposed project, to construct 14 duet homes, would be served public water provided by the Alameda County Water District (ACWD), public sewer provided by the Union Sanitary District (USD) and public stormwater-related services provided by the City of Fremont. The proposed project would connect to existing water, sanitary sewer and storm drain lines located in Washington Boulevard which already serve the area. The utility service agencies that would provide utility services to the proposed subdivision were notified by the applicant of the project and did not indicate that it would generate an increase in wastewater or stormwater runoff levels that could exceed the capacity of the sewer and storm drain lines serving the property or require excessive amounts of water that could not be provided by the existing water main serving the area. As such, the existing sewer, storm drain, and water lines serving the area need not be expanded to accommodate the proposed development and impacts to utilities would be less than significant.

As for a stormwater connection, an existing culvert is located to the east of the property near the site’s existing dirt driveway. All stormwater requirements have been designed and sized appropriately to meet current requirements utilizing vegetative bio‐swales located within the development. The discharge of the previously cleaned stormwater would flow through a pipe under the realigned project access road and connect to an existing concrete stormwater culvert. The location is strategically placed to avoid environmental impacts by tying into the existing concrete channel at the connection point to avoid any jurisdictional impacts with federal or local agencies.

Potential Impact: Less than Significant Mitigation: None Required

f-g) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

The project would be served by the City’s franchised waste hauler agreement in compliance with applicable standards for conventional residential waste products and recyclables. The agreement provides landfill capacity for anticipated residential growth in accordance with the City’s General Plan. Since the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, no impacts to solid waste disposal services would result and no mitigation is required.

Potential Impact: No Impact Mitigation: None Required

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304

XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS Of SIGNIFICANCE

Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Information ISSUES: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Sources Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or 1, 8, a. X animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of E, H a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are 2, 8, b. X B, C, considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of F, H past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Does the project have environmental effects which will cause 1, 8, c. substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or X B, C, indirectly? F, H

Discussion/Conclusion/Mitigation

The above discussion adequately addresses all potential impacts the proposed project may have on the environment. This initial study has found that the proposed project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. The implementation of the identified mitigation measures listed in Section XIX, below, combined with the project conditions of approval, would reduce all impacts the proposed Washington Residential development may have to a less-than-significant level.

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304

XIX. Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures and Earlier Analyses

a. Earlier Analyses Used: No prior CEQA environmental analysis was conducted for the proposed project or the project site.

b. Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures for the four topics listed would reduce project impacts to less than significant levels:

1) Air Quality • Air-1: Dust Control 2) Biology • Bio-1: Rare Plant Survey • Bio-2: Pre-Construction Avian Survey • Bio-3: Pre-construction Bat Survey • Bio-4: Pre-construction Amphibian Survey 3) Cultural • Cult-1: Discovery of Cultural Resources during Construction 4) Noise • Noise-1: Sound Levels

Air Quality Mitigation Measures:

Mitigation Measure Air-1: Dust Control - Prior to the issuance of a grading and/or building permit, whichever occurs first, the following best management practices shall be included in a dust control plan to limit particulate matter (fugitive dust emissions) and noted on construction plans with the contact information for a designated crewmember who would oversee the on-site implementation of the plan:

1. Water all active construction and site preparation work areas at least twice daily and more often during windy periods.

2. Cover all hauling trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard.

3. Pave, apply water at least twice daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas.

5. Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas

6. Enclose or cover securely exposed stockpiles.

7. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.

8. Suspend construction activities that cause visible dust plumes to extend beyond the construction site.

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304

Biological Resources Mitigation Measures:

Mitigation Measure Bio-2: Pre-Construction Avian Survey – If project construction-related take place during the nesting season (February through August), preconstruction surveys for nesting passerine birds and raptors (birds of prey) within the Property and the large trees within the adjacent riparian area shall be conducted by a competent biologist 14 days prior to the commencement of the tree removal or site grading activities. If any bird listed under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is found to be nesting within the project site or within the area of influence, an adequate protective buffer zone should be established by a qualified biologist in order to protect the nesting site. This buffer shall be a minimum of 75 feet from the project activities for passerine birds, and a minimum of 200 feet for raptors. The distance shall be determined by a competent biologist based on the site conditions (i.e. - topography, if the nest is in a line of sight of the construction and the sensitivity of the birds nesting). The nest site(s) shall be monitored by a competent biologist periodically to see if the birds are stressed by the construction activities and if the protective buffer needs to be increased. Once the young have fledged and are flying well enough to avoid project construction zones (typically by August), the project can proceed without further regard to the nest site(s).

Mitigation Measure Bio-3: Pre-construction Bat Survey – To avoid “take” of special–status bats, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented prior to the removal of any existing trees or structures on the project site: a) A bat habitat assessment shall be conducted by a qualified bat biologist during seasonal periods of bat activity (mid–February through mid– October – ca. Feb. 15 –Apr. 15, and Aug. 15 – October 30), to determine suitability of each existing structure as bat roost habitat. b) Structures found to have no suitable openings can be considered clear for project activities as long as they are maintained so that new openings do not occur. c) Structures found to provide suitable roosting habitat, but without evidence of use by bats, may be sealed until project activities occur, as recommended by the bat biologist. Structures with openings and exhibiting evidence of use by bats shall be scheduled for humane bat exclusion and eviction, conducted during appropriate seasons, and under supervision of a qualified bat biologist. d) Bat exclusion and eviction shall only occur between February 15 and April 15, and from August 15 through October 30, in order to avoid take of non–volant (non–flying or inactive, either young, or seasonally torpid) individuals. OR A qualified wildlife biologist experienced in surveying for and identifying bat species should survey the portion of the Property with large trees and abandoned structures to determine if any special–status bats reside in the trees or structures. Any special–status bats identified should be removed without harm. Bat houses sufficient to shelter the number of bats removed should be erected in undeveloped areas that would not be disturbed by project development.

Mitigation Measure Bio-4: Pre-construction Amphibian Survey - Due to the limited potential for CRLF to occur along the onsite creek, a pre-construction survey shall be performed no more than 48 hours prior to ground disturbance of vegetation removal. A qualified biologist shall survey the project site for CRLF (and other sensitive wildlife species) preceding the

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304

commencement of construction activities to verify absence/presence of the species. Surveys shall be performed using the USFWS protocol.

Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures:

Mitigation Measure Cult-1: Discovery of Cultural Resources during Construction - In the event that any human remains or historical or unique archaeological resources are discovered during site development work, the provisions of CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(e) and (f) for notification and evaluation would be followed to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Noise Mitigation Measures:

Mitigation Measure Noise-1: Sound Levels - The project would comply with the City of Fremont noise level criteria through incorporating the following measures in the project design: 1a. The project shall comply with the exterior noise level criteria, provided that the exterior noise level standard of 60 dBA Ldn is applied at the common outdoor activity area, as recognized by the City of Fremont Noise Element. 1b. Windows of bedrooms shall use windows with a STC rating of 30 as a means of complying with the maximum ("instantaneous) interior noise level criteria, 1c. Units shall include air conditioning units to allow the residents to close windows and doors for acoustical isolation.

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304

GENERAL SOURCE REFERENCES:

1. Existing land use. 2. City of Fremont General Plan (Land Use Chapter Text and Maps), December 13, 2011, accessed at: https://fremont.gov/398/General-Plan 3. City of Fremont Municipal Code Title VIII (e.g. Planning and Zoning, Subdivision, Grading and Maps) 4. City of Fremont General Plan (Certified 2015 Housing Element). 5. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and City of Fremont General Plan (Safety Chapter). 6. City of Fremont General Plan (Safety Chapter) 7. City of Fremont General Plan (Mobility Chapter) 8. City of Fremont General Plan (Conservation Chapter, e.g. including Biological resources, including Physical Zones, habitat zones (i.e., Tidal mudflat, wetland, low land, hill, grass land, etc), Unique Natural Areas (i.e., quarries, percolation ponds, etc.), Mineral Resources, Scenic and Visual) 9. City of Fremont General Plan (Safety Chapter, subsection Noise) 10. City of Fremont General Plan (Public Facilities Chapter) 11. City of Fremont General Plan (Land Use and Community Character Chapter) 12. City of Fremont General Plan (Park and Recreation Chapter) 13. City of Fremont General Plan (Conservation Chapter, Air Quality) 14. RWQCB National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Permit November 19, 2015 15. RWQCB, Construction Storm Water General Permit, September 2009 16. Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Hydromodification Susceptibility Map 2007 17. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FEMA online) and City of Fremont General Plan (Health and Safety Chapter) 18. Hazardous Waste & Substances Sites List, consolidated by the State Department of Toxic Substances Control, Office of Environmental Information Management, by Ca./EPA, pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 Accessed online 19. Department of Conservation Important Farmland Map 2012 20. Bay Area Air Quality Management District: Clean Air Plan CEQA Guidelines May 2012 21. City of Fremont Climate Action Plan, Adopted by the City Council, November 13, 2012 22. City of Fremont Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 2005 23. City of Fremont Municipal Code Title IV Sanitation and Health (e.g. solid waste, tree protection) 24. City of Fremont Municipal Code Title VI Public Works and Public Utilities (e.g. streets and sidewalks) 25. City of Fremont Municipal Code Title VII Building Regulations 26. Fremont Municipal Code, Title 18, Planning and Zoning, Section 18.175 Historic Resources Ordinance http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Fremont/ 27. Fremont High Fire Severity Zone Map - https://www.fremont.gov/DocumentCenter/View/28329 28. Fremont 2010 Traffic Flow Map - https://fremont.gov/documentcenter/view/5719

Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304

PROJECT RELATED REFERENCES:

A. Site Visit. June 8, 2016 conducted by Olberding Environmental, Inc. Biologist Lisa Henderson. B. AEI August 2015. AEI Consultants. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of 2529 Washington Boulevard, Fremont, California. Prepared for SRE Development, Campbell CA. August 27, 2015. C. AEI September 2015. AEI Consultants. Limited Phase II Subsurface Investigation of 2529 Washington Boulevard, Fremont, California. Prepared for SRE Development, Campbell CA. September 28, 2015. D. Basin 2016. Basin Research Associates Cultural Resources Assessment – 2529 Washington Boulevard, City of Fremont, Alameda County, California. July 5, 2016. E. HortScience 2016. HortScience, Inc. Tree Inventory of 2529 Washington Boulevard, Fremont, California. Prepared for SRE Development, Campbell CA. June 23, 2016. F. J. C. Brennan 2016. J.C. Brennan & Associates, Inc. Environmental Noise Analysis for the Washington Boulevard Residential Project, City of Fremont, California. Prepared for SRE Development, Campbell CA. June 22, 2016. G. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2016. United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Accessed June 8, 2016. Available on-line at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov H. Olberding 2016. Olberding Environmental, Inc. Biological Resources Analysis Report for the Washington Place Property, Fremont, Alameda County, California. Prepared for City of Fremont, Fremont, California. June 2016. I. Quantum Geotechnical, Inc. 2016. Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation for the Washington Boulevard Project, August 29, 2016. J. SFEI 1995. Creek and Watershed Map of Fremont and Vicinity. Janet M. Sowers, William Lettis & Associates, Inc. Historical wetlands research by the San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI). 1995. K. Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc. 2016. Geotechnical Peer Review of the Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation for the Washington Boulevard Project, September 16, 2016.

ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT 1 FIGURES

Figure 1 Regional Map Figure 2 Vicinity Map Figure 3 USGS Quadrangle Map Figure 4 Aerial Photograph Figure 5 Soils Map

LEGEND 0 2 4 8

Miles ^_ Property Location I Scale: 1:250,000 1 in = 4 miles

Figure 1: Regional Map 193 Blue Ravine Rd., Ste. 165 Washington Place Residential Development Project Folsom, CA 95630 Phone: (916) 985-1188 Alameda County, California Washington Creek

LEGEND

0 500 1,000 2,000 Property Boundary Feet I Scale: 1:12,000 1 in = 1,000 feet Creeks

Figure 2: Vicinity Map 193 Blue Ravine Rd., Ste. 165 Washington Place Residential Development Project Folsom, CA 95630 Alameda County, California Phone: (916) 985-1188 Niles USGS 7.5" Quadrangle 37°31'55.25"N, 121°56'38.38"W T05S, R01W, S02 LEGEND 0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet Property Boundary I Scale: 1:12,000 1 in = 1,000 feet

Figure 3: USGS Topographic Map 193 Blue Ravine Rd., Ste. 165 Washington Place Residential Development Project Folsom, CA 95630 Alameda County, California Phone: (916) 985-1188 Washington Creek

LEGEND

0 50 100 200 Property Boundary Feet I Scale: 1:1,200 1 in = 100 feet Creeks

Figure 4: Aerial Map 193 Blue Ravine Rd., Ste. 165 Washington Place Residential Development Project Folsom, CA 95630 Alameda County, California Phone: (916) 985-1188

Aerial Imagery Source & Date: USDA FSA - NAIP, 6/6/2014 Washington Creek

103

LEGEND Property Boundary 0 50 100 200 Creeks Feet SSURGO Soil Type I Scale: 1:1,200 1 in = 100 feet 103: Azule clay loam, 9 to 30 percent slopes

Figure 5: Soils Map 193 Blue Ravine Rd., Ste. 165 Washington Place Residential Development Project Folsom, CA 95630 Alameda County, California Phone: (916) 985-1188

Aerial Imagery Source & Date: USDA FSA - NAIP, 6/6/2014