Planning Commision Meeting

CITY OF FREMONT PLANNING COMMISSION. >> Chair Basrai: ALL RIGHT. SO I'M GOING TO CALL THE JANUARY 22nd, 2026, PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TO ORDER. FOR THIS MEETING, COMMISSIONER EZZY WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO OUR FLAG SALUTE? SORRY CALLING ON YOU, YOU LOOKED LIKE PENSIVE SO WE'RE READY TO GO. I PLEDGE ALEERNLG ANSWER TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. OKAY. SO WE CAN DO ROLL CALL. OH, I'D LIKE TO ALSO BEFORE WE DO ROLL CALL TO REMIND EVERYBODY TO PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR ELECTRONIC DEVICES AND PUT THEM IN SILENT MODE. SECRETARY YOU WANT TO DO THE ROLL CALL. >> THANK YOU, CHAIRPERSON. AT THIS TIME I'LL INTRODUCE STAFF WHO ARE PARTICIPATING TONIGHT. MY NAME IS DAVID WAGE, I'M THE PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY, JOINING US FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICING IS SENIOR DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY HEATHER LEE. TRISH CORDOVA IS THE RECORDING CLERK. COMMENTS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO THE COMMISSION PRIOR TO THE MEETING. NOW WE'RE GOING TO CALL THE ROLL, WHEN YOU HEAR YOUR NAME PLEASE RESPOND. COMMISSIONER LIU, HERE. COMMISSIONER YEE, HERE. COMMISSIONER ZHANG, HERE. COMMISSIONER EZZY, HERE. COMMISSIONER CRAIG, HERE. COMMISSIONER RAMAMURTHI. HERE. COMMISSIONER BASRAI, HERE. >> Chair Basrai: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SECRETARY WAGE. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF WE CAN GET A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING FROM NOVEMBER 13th, 2025. >> Commissioner Yee: I MOVE TO APPROVE. >> I'LL SECOND. >> Chair Basrai: ALL RIGHT, WE'LL TAKE A VOTE. ALL RIGHT, AND THE AYES HAVE IT FOR APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE NOVEMBER 13th, 2025, SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. AFTER SPEAKING WITH STAFF, WE ARE GOING TO DEFER THE ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2026. AT THIS POINT WE'LL MOVE IT TO THE NEXT MEETING. THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF A SCHEDULING ISSUE WE NEEDED TO DISCUSS AND WE'LL DISCUSS THIS OVER E-MAIL OR AFTER THE MEETING. UNLESS ANYBODY HAS ANY OBJECTIONS. OKAY. SO WE'LL DO -- WE WILL DEFER ITEM ON 1.5 FOR THE NEXT MEETINN PERSON. AT THIS TIME I WOULD LIKE TO CALL FOR ANY DISCLOSURES FOR ANY COMMISSIONER OWES FOR ANY ITEMS TONIGHT. >> Commissioner Yee: YOU WANT ME TO GO FIRST? I USUALLY -- I'M USUALLY THE ONE THAT HAS ALL THE DISCLOSURES. SO YES, I WENT BACK TO THE OLIVE SITE AGAIN. SPOKE WITH A COUPLE OF FREMONT RESIDENTS, READ SOME OF THE E-MAILS FROM SOME OF THE RESIDENTS, WENT TO WHERE THE CELL TOWER WAS WALKED THAT AND ALSO READ SOME E-MAILS ABOUT THE RESIDENTS ABOUT THAT PROJECT. >> Chair Basrai: COMMISSIONER EZZY. >> Commissioner Ezzy: , I REVISITED THE OLIVE AREA, AND HAD THE CHANCE TO GO BECOME BY THE LOCATION FOR ITEM NUMBER 2, I DIDN'T GO IN BUT TOOK A LOOK AND HAVE REVIEWED ALL THE CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE PUBLIC AND OTHERWISE. I HAVEN'T HAD ANY CONVERSATIONS SPECIFIC TO ANY OF THE OTHERS. >> Chair Basrai: ANY ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE? COMMISSIONER CRAIG. >> Commissioner Craig: I WENT BY THE SITES AND REVIEWED THE E-MAILS. >> Chair Basrai: ALL RIGHT. >> Commissioner Liu: I ACTUALLY SPOKE WITH ALL OF THE APPLICANTS AFTER OUR LAST MEETING, SPOKE WITH THEM AND DROAFER BY THE SITES. >> Chair Basrai: OKAY. >> Commissioner Zhang: I ALSO DROVE BY THE SOUTH TOWER SITE TODAY, I WENT TO THE OLIVE AVENUE SITE THE OTHER TIME, NOT RECENTLY. I ALSO SPOKE WITH THE APPLICANT. >> Chair Basrai: COMMISSIONER RAMAMURTHI. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE. >> Vice Chair Ramamurthi: I READ THE E-MAILS COMMUNICATIONS. >> Chair Basrai: AND I ALSO READ THE COMMUNICATIONS. SO NOW IS THERE ANYTHING ON -- DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THERE'S ANYTHING ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS TRISH? >> Trish Cordova: YES, WE HAVE ONE. HOW MANY MINUTES? >> Chair Basrai: THREE. >> Trish Cordova: THANK YOU, ONE MOMENT. OKAY, JOHN DANTONI PLEASE COME UP AND SPEAK. >> HELLO, GOOD EVENING, THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME. MISNAME IS JOHN DANTONI. IN BEHALF OF FREMONT FOOTBALL AND CHEER YOUTH, I'M LOOKING FOR SPONSORS. WE COACH AND PLAY WITH KIDS FROM EIGHT YEARS OLD TO 14 YEAR OLD BOYS AND GIRLS BOTH. I'M LOOKING FOR SOME HELP FOR FIELDS, SPONSORS, ANYTHING WE CAN DO. WE CURRENTLY HAVE 160 KIDS RIGHT THOUSAND. WE'RE LOOKING TO BRING IT UP TO 320. WE'RE HAVING PROBLEMS GETTING FIELDS. I UNDERSTAND WASHINGTON HIGH SCHOOL HAS A TEELD AND LIGHTS AND WE WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO USE THAT FOR SOME OF OUR HOME GAMES AND SOME OF THE FIELDS, IF IT'S FOR PRACTICE FIELDS. WE ALSO ARE LOOKING FOR SPO SPONSORS. ANY HELP WE CAN GET. WE ARE GOING UP AGAINST PLACES LIKE MILPITAS WHERE THE CITY COMPLETELY SPONSORS THEM. WE ARE RELYING ON THE PARENTS TO PAY FOR EVERYTHING AND IT IS HARD FOR THE PARENTS. WE ARE LOOKING FOR ANY DIRECTIONS YOU CAN HOPE US, HEY DO THIS, DO THAT, GO AFTER THAT WORK, MAYBE WASHINGTON IS THOUGHT FOR YOU, YOU KNOW, WE'RE LOOKING FOR ANY KIND OF HELP. LAST YEAR WE PLAYED SAN JOSE AND McDONALD'S STADIUM AND IT'S PRETTY TOUGH FOR US. THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT. ANY KIND OF HELP WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. ANY QUESTIONS? I GUESS NOT. THANK YOU. >> Trish Cordova: THAT COMPLETES THE PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. >> Chair Basrai: OKAY, SO I THINK WE CAN OPEN IT TO ITEM NUMBER 1. >> THANK YOU. THE FIRST ITEM ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA IS OLIVE AVENUE HOMES AT 2057 OLIVE AVENUE. TO CONSIDER A DISCRETIONARY DESIGN Review Permit, a Vesting Tentative Tract Map, and a Private Street for the development of six new two-story single-family dwellings located in the Mission San Jose Community Plan Area; and to consider a finding that no further environmental review is required pursuant to an exemption from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, Infill Development Projects, CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, as the project is consistent with the land use envisioned for the site as established by the General Plan for which an Environmental IMPACT REPORT was previously prepared and certified, and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163, as none of the circumstances requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR have occurred. Each of the foregoing provides a separate and independent basis for CEQA compliance. CHAIR, THE PLANNER WITH US THIS EVENING IS SPENCER SHHAFSKY. THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE A TEN MINUTE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT AND THEN PUBLIC COMMENT AND THEN FIVE MINUTE REBUTTAL FROM THE APPLICANT. >> TONIGHT'S PRESENTATION WILL BE A BRIEF REVIEW OF THE PROJECT INCLUDING THE PROPOSED PERMITS, INFORMATION ON THE PROPOSED PROJECT, BACKGROUND ON THE NOVEMBER 13th CONTINUATION AND STAFF -- >> EXCUSE ME, SPENCER, I THINK THE WRONG PRESENTATION IS QUEUED UP. SORRY TO INTERRUPT. >> THANK YOU. SO THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A DISCRETIONARY DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT, PROPOSED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NUMBER 8752, AND A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. TWO ADJ ADJACENT PARCELS, OLIVE AVENUE TO THE SOUTH AND THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES WERE DEVELOPED, ALL HAVE A ZONING DESIGNATION OF R-1X 65 ABSENT LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. THE SITE CONTAINS ONE TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOME CONSTRUCTED IN 1917 AND RECEIVABLE ACCESSORIZE STRUCTURES. WILL BE DEMOLISHED TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. THE CURRENT ZONING DESIGNATION IS R 1X 6.5, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH 2.3 TO 8.7 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IS NOT SUBJECT TO REZONING REQUIREMENT WHEN THE HOUSING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN ZONING AND SUBDIVISION STANDARDS AT THE TIME THE SUBDIVISION WAS DEEMED COMPLETE. FOR THE SUBJECT SITE, RESIDENTIAL PROJECT WITH A NET DENSITY OF 2.3 TO 8.7 UNITS PER ACRE, THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN DENSITY STANDARDS FOR THE SITE AND THEREFORE IS NOT SUBJECT TO REZONING REQUIREMENT. THE APPLICANT IS PERMITTED TO WITH DEVELOP RESIDENTIAL HOMES BY RIGHT UNDER STATE LAW AND HAS ELECTED TO NOT PURSUE A R REDEVELOPMENT SITE. SMALL LOT GUIDELINES APPLY TO LOTS OF LESS THAN 6,000 SQUARE FEET IN AREA AND WOULD ALLOW A DENSITY LESS THAN PERMITTED BY THE GENERAL PLAN WITH THE PROPOSED LOT SIZES RANGING FROM 5446 SQUARE FEET TO 5940 SQUARE FEET. THE PROJECT HAS DETERMINED TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS IN FREMONT MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN AND AS AN OBJECTIVELY, EVIDENCE IS ON RECORD SHOWING THAT THE PROJECT WOULD HAVE AN IDENTIFIED PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACT. AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 13th, 2025, AFTER RECEIVING STAFF AND APPLICANT PRESENTATIONS AND HEARING TESTIMONY FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC REGARDING THE PROJECT THE COMMISSION CONTINUED THIS ITEM DIRECTING STAFF TO FURTHER -- TO CONDUCT FURTHER EVALUATION OF WHETHER THE PROJECT WITH IMPACT A POTENTIAL HISTORIC RESOURCE ON THE SITE UNDER CEQA. SUBSEQUENT TO THE NOVEMBER 13th HEARING HOWEVER STAFF LEARNED OF A RELATIVELY NEW STATE LAW PROVISION THAT HAD NOT BEEN RAISED IN THE APPLICANT'S EARLIER APPLICATIONS WHICH RESTRICTS THE CITY'S ABILITY TO REVISIT THAT THE SITE DID NOT CONTAIN A HISTORIC RESOURCE. CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE 6591 THREE.10A PROVIDES THAT ANY STATE LAW OR REGULATION THAT REQUIRES THE CITY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IS A HISTORIC SITE, THE CITY OR COUNTY SHALL MAKE THAT APPLICATION AT THE TIME THE PROJECT IS DEEMED COMPLETE. A DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER A PARCEL OF PROPERTY IS A HISTORIC SITE SHALL REMAIN VALID FOR WHICH THE APPLICATION WAS MADE UNLESS ANY ARCHAEOLOGICAL PALEONTOLOGYICAL BUILDING ALTERATION ACTIVITIES. UNDER STATE LAW, STAFF'S DOARMINGS OF ELIGIBILITY FOR THE PROPERTY MUST REMAIN VALID THROUGH THE ENTITLEMENT, PERMITTING AND CONSTRUCTION PROCESS OF THE PROJECT. STAFF DEEMED THE PROJECT APPLICATION COMPLETE OWN AUGUST 25th, 2025. THE HISTORIC DETERMINATION ON THE PROPERTY AT THAT TIME WAS, AND STILL REMAINS, THAT IT IS NOT HISTORIC. THIS DETERMINATION WAS INFORMED BY THE DPR PREPARED ON APRIL -- IN APRIL OF 2008 BY WOOD LUF WOF MINOR. THIS DETERMINING MAY NOT BE CHANGED DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE PROJECT, UNLESS ANY OTHERS ARE ENCOUNTERED DURING GROUND DISTURBANCE OR ACTIVITIES. IN CONCLUSION, WOULD NOT YIELD ANY INFORMATION THAT COULD LEGALLY ALTER OR PROVIDE A BASIS OF ANY CEQA FINDING. ACCORDINGLY STAFF RECOMMENDS THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDER THE APPLICATION AS PRESENTED AT THE NOVEMBER 13th, 2025 MEETING, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SB 330 AND ALL OTHER APPLICABLE LAWS. THEREFORE, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVE THE PROJECT AND FIND THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM CEQA BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN THE STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. THANK YOU. >> Chair Basrai: OKAY, I'M GOING TO OPEN UP TO ANY QUESTIONS FROM ANY COMMISSIONERS TO STAFF. COMMISSIONER YEE. >> Commissioner Yee: YES. WHEN WE MADE THAT RECOMMENDATION TO REVISIT THIS, I WAS LOOKING AT ONE OF THE E-MAILS THAT WAS SENT OUT BY THE PUBLIC, EARLIER THIS EVENING. AND I TOOK A LOOK AND I'M JUST TRYING TO SEE HOW THIS DETERMINATION OF THE NEW STATE LAW RELATIVE TO THE CURRENT ONE, THAT I COULD SEE THAT TALKED ABOUT MAKING SURE WE HAVE A DPR THAT'S CURRENT AND RELEVANT. SO WHEN I LOOKED I SAW UNDER CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS PART 14, SECTION 4852, UNDER THE HISTORICAL RESOURCE SURVEYS AND NUMBER 3 IT SAYS IF THE RESULTS OF THE SURVEY ARE H OF FIVE OR MORE YEARS OLD, THE DOCUMENTATION FOR RESOURCES MUST BE UPDATED PRIOR TO NOMINATION TO ENSURE THE ACCURACY OF REQUIRES SURVEYS OVER ADVERTISE YEARS OLD TO BE UPDATED. HOW DOES THAT PLAY INTO THIS NEW STATE LAW? BECAUSE I'M LOOKING AT THIS PARTICULAR PART AND SECTION THAT SAYS WE SHOULD HAVE A DPR THAT SHOULD BE LESS THAN FIVE YEARS OLD. BECAUSE THIS ONE'S 17, 18 YEARS OLD. SO THAT'S WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION FROM A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO, YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT THIS CODE WAS IN PLACE UNTIL I JUST FOUND OUT, JUST ONLY ABOUT TWO HOURS AGO, WHEN I DID A SEARCH. SO I'M JUST WONDERING HOW DOES THIS PARTICULAR CODE COME INTO PLAY WITH THE STATE LAW THAT YOU JUST PRESENTED TO US? >> SO I BELIEVE THAT CODE APPLIES TO PROPERTIES THAT HAVE BEEN DEEMED ELIGIBLE FOR THE REGISTRY AND PRIOR TO HAVING IT LISTED FOR THE CALIFORNIA REGISTRY, THEY DO REQUEST THAT UPDATED DPR BE PRESENTED. HOWEVER SINCE THIS PROJECT WAS THOUGHT DEEMED ELIGIBLE I DON'T BELIEVE THAT FIVE YEAR REVIEW IS ELIGIBLE. >> Commissioner Yee: YOU DON'T THINK THIS APPLIES? >> I DON'T THINK IT APPLIES. THE HOUSE WOS NOT DEEMED ELIGIBLE FOR THE PREVIOUS REPORT THEREFORE IT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING ON THE REPORT. >> Commissioner Yee: THANK YOU. >> Chair Basrai: COMMISSIONER RAMAMURTHI. >> Vice Chair Ramamurthi: WHAT MAKES IT NOT ELIGIBLE? YOU'RE SAYING DEPENDING ON THE LAST REPORT IT IS NOT ELIGIBLE. WE ARING ASKING THE QUESTION, THE LAST DPR ITSELF IS NOT VIOLATIVE ENOUGH, OTHER THAN THE POINT THE LAST DPR MAKES IT INELIGIBLE. WHAT ELSE MAKES IT INELIGIBLE? >> THE DPR DEEMS IT INELIGIBLE DUE TO THE MATERIALS ON THE EXTERIOR, OTHER ITEMS OF THE EXTERIOR THAT MAKES IT INELIGIBLE. SINCE THAT DPR HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN 2008 THERE HAVE BEEN NO OTHER ALTERATIONS TO THE SITE AND SING IN HAS BEEN CHANGED THAT WOULD ALTER A DETERMINATION OF A NEW DPR, THERE'S THOG TO TRIGGER IT, NOTHING HAS BEEN CHANGED AT THE SITE. >> Vice Chair Ramamurthi: THANK YOU, MY QUESTION IS QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF THE DPR ITSELF DEPENDING ON THE SAME DPR WE ARE QUESTIONING HERE. IS THERE ANY OTHER REASON THAT MAKES IT INELIGIBLE? >> THE DPR DETERMINED IT TO BE INELIGIBLE. >> Vice Chair Ramamurthi: THAT IS IT BUT WE ARE QUESTIONING THE DPR WHETHER IT'S VALID BECAUSE IT IS OLD. IT IS MORE THAN FIVE YEARS. YOU SEE THE CHICKEN AND EGG STORY HERE. >> THE FIVE YEAR DETERMINATION, DEN, THAT'S FOR PROPERTIES THAT ARE DEEMED ELIGIBLE PRIOR TO -- IF THE PROPERTY OWNER CHOOSES TO LIST IRT FOR THE REGISTRY. IN THIS CASE IT WAS DEEMED NOT HISTORIC AND NOT ELIGIBLE, THEREFORE THEY DON'T EXPIRE. IF IT'S DEEMED INELIGIBLE IT IS DETERMINED INELIGIBLE. >> Vice Chair Ramamurthi: I UNDERSTAND BUT YOU ARE REPEATING THE SAME THING. THERE IS NO OTHER REASON TO CONSIDER THIS NOT ELIGIBLE. IS THERE PERHAPS YOU CAN GIVE ME A REASON WHY IT IS NOT ELIGIBLE SINCE WE ARE QUESTIONING, THE DPR ITSELF IS NOT VALID BECAUSE IT IS MORE THAN FIVE YEARS OLD. HIGHWAY CAN YOU USE THAT TO SAY IT IS A REASON IT IS NOT ELIGIBLE? >> IT DOESN'T BECOME INVALID BY JUST THE VIRTUE OF IT NOT BEING FIVE YEARS. RENEWED IN FIVE YEARS AND I DON'T THINK THERE WERE ANY FACTS THAT WOULD WARRANT THAT WE'RE AWARE OF THAT HAD CHANGED IT. NOW I APPRECIATE THAT THERE'S BEEN SOME UNEASE WITH THE DPR ITSELF BUT THE STATE LAW AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED HERE REALLY MADE IT NECESSARY FOR US TO RELY ON THAT DETERMINATION AT THE TIME THE APPLICATION WAS DEEMED COMPLETE. SO WE'RE REALLY NOT IN A POSITION TO REVISIT THE DPR AT THIS POINT IN TIME. >> I WOULD JUST ADD THAT THE DPR WAS PREPARED BY A QUALIFIED ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN AND THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE STATE. >> Chair Basrai: I JUST WANT TO QUALIFY A FEW THINGS. THE ORIGINAL DPR DECLARED THE SITE TO BE INELIGIBLE TO BE AN HISTORIC SITE AND SO WHEN A DPR CAN BE REVISITED IF IT'S AN ELIGIBLE SITE AND IT IS OVER FIVE YEARS. SO IT WAS NEVER ELIGIBLE TO BE AN HISTORIC SITE. AT ANY POINT, THIS LOCATION WAS NEVER DEEMED AN HISTORIC SITE. >> CORRECT. >> Chair Basrai: AND IT WAS SURVEYED FOR IT, THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO MAKE, NEVER DEEMED AND REGARDLESS HOW LONG AGO IT WAS. COMMISSIONER CRAIG, SORRY. >> Commissioner Craig: YES SO BUILDING ON THIS I HAVE A HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION. THERE WAS A PATIO DOOR AND SOME OTHER PART THAT DEEMED IT INELIGIBLE IN THAT REPORT. HAD SOMEBODY AFTER THAT REPORT CHANGED OUT THE SIDING AND THINGS TO SOMETHING THAT MATCHED THE HISTORICAL THING, WOULD THAT THEN CHANGE IT TO BE ABLE TO, JUST A HYPOTHETICAL SECOND, WOULD THAT QUALIFY IT TO BE HISTORICAL OR ONCE IT'S DEEMED TO BE NOT HISTORICAL, IT -- EVEN IF THINGS WERE KIND OF BROUGHT TO PREVIOUS CONDITION IT WOULDN'T BE LIKE BE ABLE TO BE REASSESSED? LIKE PRETTY MUCH ONCE IT'S DISQUALIFIED IT IS DISQUALIFIED FOR GOOD? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? >> THAT MAKES SENSE. I THINK IN THIS CASE AND IN SOME CASES IF YOU RESTORE A PROPERTY TO ITS PREVIOUS STATE AND YOU REPLACED THE HISTORICAL DEFINING FEATURES THAT WERE REMOVED YOU COULD I GUESS THEE RECEIPT LIQUID HAVE IT REEVALUATED AND SEE IF THAT RESTORATION MADE IT ELIGIBLE, I CAN'T SAY IN THIS CASE. >> Commissioner Craig: SINCE NONE OF THOSE THINGS WERE EVER CHANGED TO BRING IT BACK TO HISTORICAL THAT DISQUALIFIES IT FROM BEING INELIGIBLE? >> THE QUALITIES ARE STILL THERE. >> Chair Basrai: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM ANY COMMISSIONERS FOR STAFF? OKAY. WE CAN OPEN IT UP TO PUBLIC HEARING. TRISH HOW MANY DO WE HAVE? >> Commissioner Yee: THE APPLICANT GETS TEN MINUTES. >> Chair Basrai: TEN MINUTES, SORRY. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS TONY SARBOREA, I'M THE ARCHITECT FOSTER THIS PROJECT AND I'M HERE WITH OUR DEVELOPMENT TEAM ANDEN OUR LAND USE ATTORNEY. JUST ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. THE STAFF DID AN EXCELLENT REPORT AND WE ALL WENT EVERY IT AT THE LAST MEETING. -- OVER IT AT THE LAST MEETING . WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE FURTHER EVALUATION THEY HAVE PRESENTED, AND WE'RE REALLY JUSY QUESTIONS THAT MAY COME UP AFTER THIS PRESENTATION. I WOULD LIKE TO TURN IT OVER NOW TO OUR ATTORNEY MR. BLACKWELL WHO IS GOING TO COME AND SAY A FEW WORDS ABOUT THE HISTORIC ASSETS. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS, DAVID BLACK WOAL, I'M THE LAND USE PARTNER WITH THE ALLEN ATKINS FIRM IN LOS ANGELES, I'M HERE WITH THE APPLICANT. MY CLIENT IS THOUGHT AVAILABLE TO BE HERE TONIGHT SO I'M COVERING FOR HER BUT I'M FAMILIAR WITH THIS PROJECT AND WITH THE STATE LAWS THAT GOVERN HERE. BECAUSE THAT LETTER WAS QUITE THOROUGH AS WAS THE STAFF REPORT BOTH WRITTEN AND ORAL TONIGHT, I'M NOT GOING TO REHASH ALL THAT. ALL I WANT TO SAY IS REALLY THE GUIDING PRINCIPLE HERE IS IT IS GUIDING BY STATE HOUSING LAWS AND HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, GOVERNMENT 699.5 AND REFERRED BY STAFF AS SB 330 BECAUSE THEY ARE SOMEWHAT INTERTWINED. THAT REALLY FORECLOSES THE HISTORICAL ISSUE AND WITH REGARD TO THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, YOU KNOW, AS STAFF HAS NOTED, THE DISCRETION IS SO SEVERELY LIMITED NOW, THERE HAS TO BE ADVERSE IMPACT TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY. IT DOESN'T JUST HAVE TO BE EVIDENCE, IT IS THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, VERY HIGH BAR. YOU REALLY DON'T SEE THAT TOO OFTEN. I DON'T WANT TO TAKE UP TOO MUCH TIME, I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE THEM. OTHERWISE I'LL STOP. THANK YOU. >> Chair Basrai: THE APPLICANT IS DONE. DOES ANYONE ON THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY. SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. SO NOW WE CAN MOVE TO PUBLIC COMMENT. >> Trish Cordova: HI, ONE MOMENT, LET ME JUST DOUBLE CHECK THE NUMBER. WE HAVE 20 SPEAKERS. I BELIEVE IT'S TWO MINUTES, IS THAT OKAY? >> Chair Basrai: WE'LL DO TWO MINUTES. >> Trish Cordova: OKAY, FIRST SPEAKER IS KARAN, COME FORWARD. >> HELLO, COMMISSIONERS, I'M KARAN, I'M A RESIDENT OF FREMONT AND I BELIEVE THIS EXISTING PROJECT WHICH WE HAVE IS A PRODUCT OF USAGE OF THE RESIDENTIAL LOTS WHICH WILL HELP THE EASE OF HOUSING SHOARNLG IN THE COMMUNITY IN THE FREMONT AREA. AS YOU KNOW THERE IS A LOT OF HOUSING SHORTAGE. THIS WILL HELP, THIS WILL HELP INCREASING THE HOUSING AS WELL AS KIND OF INCREASING THE PROPERTY TAXES AS WELL TO THE COMMUNITY WHICH WILL IMPROVE THE COMMUNITY AS WELL. AND THESE HOUSES WOULD HELP NEW HOUSES COMING TO THE MARKET AND HELP US, HELP US RIGHT NOW, THIS KIND OF NEW HOUSES IN THE FREMONT AREA WOULD HELP ME GET A SOOUTZABLE HOUSE WHICH I WOULD REQUEST THAT YOU CONSIDER THIS AND APPROVE THIS PROJECT. THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. >> Trish Cordova: OKAY, AT THIS TIME BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF SPEAK ORES, I'M GOING TO CALL FIVE AT A TIME. IF YOU CAN LINE UP WHEN YOU HEAR YOUR NAME. SANDEEP READY, SEOYING, DEVIA, TIM COW, ISABEL MACIAS. >> HELLO COMMISSIONERS, GOOD EVENING, MY NAME IS SANDEEP READY, I'M A RESIDENT OF WARM SPRINGS, FREMONT, I'VE BEEN A RESIDENT OF FREMONT FOR 11 YEARS NOW. SO WE GOT TOWN HOME RIGHT NEXT TO WHARMS BART, THAT'S WHERE I LIVE RIGHT NOW. SO WE NOW HAVE LIKE TWO LITTLE ONES AND I'VE BEEN ACTIVELY IN THE MARKET TO BUYS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, ESPECIALLY THE MISSION AS YOU KNOW SCHOOL DISTRICT, IT'S BEEN ACTUALLY EXTREMELY HARD, RIGHT NOW, ONE THE HOMES LIKE ALWAYS PRICED OUT, PROBABLY AWARE OF YOUR BUDGET NUMBER 1 AND NUMBER 2 THERE IS PROBABLY MUCH FEWER INVENTORY, AND HANDCUFFED BY INTEREST RATES OR WHATEVER THE REASON WOULD BE, AND I'VE BEEN IN THE MARKET FOR SIX MONTHS NOW. AND WE ARE AT A POINT WHERE WE COULD PROBABLY WANT TO MOVE OUT TO FREMONT. WE DID LOOK AT A FEW COMMUNITIES IN DUBLIN AND SAN RAMON. THE COMMUTE IS CRAZY FROM DUBLIN TO SUNNYVALE, SO WE THINK WE WILL PROBABLY STAY. WHEN PROJECTS LIKE THIS ARE UNDERTAKEN, I HAVE SIX HOUSES ARE BEING BUILT, AT LEAST NO, SIR OH NOT THAT I WILL GET IT, I MAY NOT GET IT, IT IS ALL SECONDARY, BUT SO I STRONGLY URGE THE COMMISSION TO APPROVE THE HIGH DENSITY PROJECT, THIS IS ONE LOT TODAY AND IT IS BEING CONVERTED, THAT IS STILL GOOD FOR US, IT IS PROBABLY A THREE HOME FOR SIX FAMILIES. I WOULDN'T WANT ANYONE HERE TO TAKE AWAY THEIR DREAM. THANK YOU. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS AN GING. I'M A CURRENT RESIDENT IN FREMONT. I'VE BEEN LIVING THERE FOR TWO YEARS. AND I BELIEVE THAT FREMONT IS FACING A SHEFER HOUSING AND RENTAL SHORTAGE WHICH CONTINUES TO DRIVE UP THE RENTS. AND PUSH THE WORKING INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES LIKE US OUT OF THE COMMUNITY. I BELIEVE THIS PROJECT CAN DIRECTLY ADD TO NEW HOUSING SUPPLY WHICH IS THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO STABILIZE THE RENTS, AND ADDRESS THIS DISPLACEMENT. THE HIGH DENSITY IS NO LONGER OPTIONAL. IT IS REQUIRED UNDER STATE HOUSING LAWS. TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE BEING SHORTAGE AND NEW JOBS AND TRANSIT. SO SUPPORTING PROJECTS LIKE THIS SENDS A CLEAR MESSAGE, THAT FREMONT IS COMMITTED TO SOLVING THIS HOUSING CRISIS, NOT DELAYING IT. THANK YOU. >> Trish Cordova: DEVIA YOU'RE NEXT. >> GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS, I REALLY SUPPORT THIS PROJECT, FREMONT NEEDS MORE HOISTING AND THIS PROJECT HAS MORE RESPONSIBLE DENSITY BY IMPROVING SAFETY. AS A NEW DEVELOPMENT IT CONTRIBUTES TO FREMONT'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING GOAL SO I STRONGLY RECOMMEND YOU GUYS TO APPROVE THIS PROJECT. AND THANK YOU. >> Trish Cordova: NEXT SPEAKER IS TIM COW. >> HI, GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS, I'M HERE TO, I'M A FREMONT RESIDENT, 4140 CONGRESS STREET. I SUPPORT THE HOISTING ISSUE. THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO SAY. PLEASE APPROVE IT. THANK YOU. >> Trish Cordova: NEXT SPEAKER, ISABEL MACIAS. >> GOOD EVENING, I'M I ISABEL, M A FREMONT RESIDENT, I DID NOT SEE ANY PREVIOUS NOTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE LEGAL REALITY OF THIS PROJECT BUT YOU GUYS TALKED ABOUT IT TONIGHT SO GIVEN THAT ISSUE IS NOW RESOLVED, I RESPECTFULLY ENCOURAGE ALL OF YOU TO MOVE TOWARD AND APPROVE THIS PROJECT. THANK YOU. >> Trish Cordova: THANK YOU. I'M NOW CALLING UP THE NEXT FIVE SPEAKERS IF YOU CAN LINE UP OVER HERE. GENE BERNAL,UDAYA, NASIR, MUSTAFA AHMED. >> GOOD EVENING, MY NAME IS JEAN BERNAL, I'VE LIVED ON OLIVE AVENUE FOR OVER 20 YEARS, I UNDERSTAND WE DO NEED HOMES IN FREMONT AND I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE CONCERNS. HAVE YOU INCREASED THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR INCREASING THE RESIDENTS FOR ELECTRICITY, WATER, SEWER AND TRASH. THESE ARE ALSO SIX ADUS THAT GO, WITH THE UNITS, 12, WE HAVE TROUBLE WITH PARKING AND TRAFFIC BECAUSE IT IS A SCHOOL STREET ALSO, WHERE THE BUSES GOOD UP AND DOWN. GO UP AND DOWN SO IT IS A BIG DEAL. WHAT IS THE CITY DOING TO DEAL WITH THE CARS ON THE ROAD AND PARKING ON THE PREMISES, SINCE THERE IS PARKING ON THIS STREET AS WE ALREADY HAVE PARKING PROBLEMS. AND MODERATE TRAFFIC ON OLIVE NOW. WILL WE HAVE THE SAME QUALITY OF OUR SERVICES? WILL OUR WATER BE BACKING UP? WILL THERE BE PRESSURE, ALL THESE THINGS DO YOU CONSIDER ALL THIS FOR US TOO? BECAUSE ARE WE GOING TO HAVE THE SAME QUALITY OF OUR HOMES, YOU KNOW, AND I KNOW YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS TODAY BUT CAN YOU PLEASE POINT ME OUT TO THE PERSON AND THE CHAMBER SO I CAN PROVIDE MY CONTACT INFORMATION SO I CAN GET ANSWERS TO MY QUESTIONS BY THE STAFF? I SEE YOU HAVE SEVERAL PROJECTS PLANNED AROUND OLIVE AVENUE. IT'S NOT JUST NIECE ON OLIVE AVENUE, THERE ARE OTHER ONES AND IT MAY IMPACT THAT. SO IS THIS ZONING BEING CHANGED AND WE CAN DO ALSO WITH OTHER ONE ACRES AND PUT ANOTHER SIX HOUSES ON IT. SO THANK YOU. >> Trish Cordova: THANK YOU. OKAY NEXT SPEAKER IS UDAYA. >> GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONER, MY NAME IS UDAYA GRANT. I LIVE RIGHT ACROSS 2057 OLIVE AVENUE AND WE ALWAYS WELCOME THE NEW CONSTRUCTION IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, MUCH NEEDED FOR FREMONT. THE CONCERN WE HAVE IS THE PARKING. SO WHAT WE ARE GETTING TO KNOW IS THERE ARE A TOTAL OF SIX NEW UNITS AND SIX ADUS HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED. SO SEEN IF YOU ASSUME TWO PER HOUSE AND ONE ACCREDIT CAR PER ADU, YOU ARE TALKING TOTAL 18 CARS ON THE STREET ACTUALLY. AND THAT STREET, JUST TO GIVE PERSPECTIVE, IS A VERY NARROW STREET. YOU HAVE A LOT OF OLIVE TREES AND VERY NARROW STREET AND IS THERE OPPOSITION TO EEN CARS INSIDE THE POSTCONSTRUCTION, THAT IS ONE QUESTION I HAVE. SECOND IS WE ARE LIVING IN A SCHOOL NEIGHBORHOOD. LOT OF KIDS THEY RIDE TO THE SCHOOL BOTH THE HIGH SCHOOL AND TO THE MIDDLE SCHOOL AND TO THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, RIGHT? BECAUSE THERE IS NO CURB THERE VERY NARROW STREET AGAIN WITH MULTIPLE CARS PARKED, IT IS GOING TO BE A BIG HAZARD TO THE KIDS AND ALSO CAUSE LOTS OF STOANTS. WE REALLY WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT PRECAUTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE, WE DON'T WANT ALL THESE EXTRA CARS TO BE PARKED ON THE STREET. IT IS ALSO A CONGESTED STREET. WE DON'T WANT LIKE S SAN FRANCISCO. THANK YOU. >> Trish Cordova: NEXT SPEAKER IS JANET BARJAN. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSION. COMMISSIONERS. I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH A HISTORICAL ARCHITECT OR ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN FOR THE NOMINATION OF SHINN PARK TO THE NATIONAL REGISTER, I'VE GOTTEN TO KNOW HIM VERY WELL AND HE WROTE A LETTER, BECAUSE OF MY WORK OVER THE YEARS, I LEARNED ABOUT THE CONNECTION WITHIN HA MINTON, VERY FAMOUS IN HIS TIME ARCHITECT WHO BUILT OVER 466 PROJECTS. BECAUSE OF THIS CONNECTION, HE IS -- OKAY, SORRY, HE IS FAMILIAR WITH THE PERRY HOUSE ON OLIVE AND THE THREAT TO IT AND HAS READ THE DPR FORM PREPARED ON THE HOUSE YEARS AGO. THE DPR FORM WAS WELL DONE CONCERNING THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE AT THAT TIME. HE WAS A REVIEWER OF MOST OF THE FORMS AND PROBABLY REVIEWED THIS ONE, HOWEVER IT IS OUT OF DATE TODAY AND SHOULD BE REDONE. THIS IS A NORMAL THING THAT PEOPLE DO. FIVE YEARS IS THE NORMAL AMOUNT OF TIME THAT THEY CONSIDER THAT A DPR SHOULD BE REWRITTEN. SO HE'S BEEN HIRED MANY TIMES FOR THAT PURPOSE. TYPICALLY BECAUSE OF COMPLAINTS FROM PROPERTY DEVELOPERS. THIS IS THE NATURE OF THINGS AND HIS KNOWLEDGE, HE DOESN'T -- OKAY SORRY, I HAVE TO SKIP A LOT OF THIS STUFF BECAUSE IT'S -- 14 MINUTES. SO REGARDING AND ALSO, THE ASBESTOS, THE LACK OF THE INTERIOR, HE SAYS INTERIOR EVALUATION IS VERY IMPORTANT AS WELL. THANK YOU. >> Trish Cordova: THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER, NASSIR SAYED. >> HELLO, COMMISSION. MY NAME IS NASSIR SAYED. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TAKING OUR GRIEVANCES. I'M A LONG TIME RESIDENT OF OLIVE AVENUE AND SO ARE A BUNCH OF MY NEIGHBORS HERE. AND, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO WELCOME THE NEW GUYS HERE NOW, IF YOU ARE COMING INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WE WOULD LIKE TO WELCOME YOU. BUT WE HAVE VALID CONCERNS. AND YOU BEING THE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO APPROVE THIS, PLEASE TRY TO LOOK INTO THE CONCERNS FROM THE NEIGHBORS PERSPECTIVES. NUMBER ONE, YOU LOOK AT THE STREET, IT DOESN'T HAVE THE PAVEMENT. OKAY? IS YOUR PLAN GOING TO PUT THE PAVEMENT THERE? OR ARE THEY GOING TO JUST PUT ALL THE HOMES FACING THE ROAD. AS THEY HAD SAID IT IS A VERY NARROW STREET THERE, RIGHT? IF YOU ARE A THROUGH WAY 680 USE, BECHTEL HAS SPACE FOR PARKING 18 TO 20 CARS INSIDE, INSIDE THE PREMISE, AND NOT PUT ALL THOSE ONTO US. ALSO THE JUNCTION OF OLIVE AND PASEO I WAS A WITNESS FOR ONE OF THE ACCIDENTS. RIGHT? IT IS NOT THE SAFEST JUNCTION THAT IS THERE. AND IT IS A BUSY PLACE. NOW YOU GUYS ARE ADDING MORE HOUSING UNITS THERE, SURE. YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE MORE CARS, SURE. BUT PLEASE CONSIDER HOW MUCH PAIN IT IS GOING TO BE FOR ALL OF US. SO PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, MIDDLE EAST, MAKE SURE THE RESOURCES ARE PLANNED PROPERLY AND WE WANT PARKING INSIDE FOR ALL THE CARS. THANK YOU. >> Trish Cordova: THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER, MUSTAFA AH MMED. >> I LIVED ON OLIVE AVENUE FOR MY ENTIRE LIFE. I'M NOT AGAINST DEVELOPMENT BUT THIS DEVELOPMENT RAISES SERIOUS CONCERNS. STRAINED PARKING AND INFRASTRUCTURE AND SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF OUR AT THE END OF THE DAY. RESIDENTS WHO ALREADY LIVE HERE WILL BE GREATLY AFFECTED EVERY DAY. I RESPECTFULLY ASK THE COUNCIL TO PAUSE THIS DECISION, RECONSIDER THE SCALE OF THIS PROJECT, INVOLVE THE COMMUNITY MORE. >> Trish Cordova: THANK YOU. I'M NOW CALLING UP THE NEXT FIVE SPEAKERS TO COME FORWARD. FIRST IS LEI LING. PUFURNA READY, YANG YOUNG. ANAV, WILSON GOSTI. >> YES, I FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS FROM LAST HEARING. ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS POINTED OUT ONLY TWO UNITS HAVE ADU BUT APPLICANT SAYS ALL SIX UNITS HAVE ADU. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE CITY SHOULD BE REEVALUATED THIS PLAN BASED ON THIS ISSUE. SECOND, LAST TIME THE APPLICANT APPLIED TO OUR CONCERN ABOUT PARKING SPACE, HE MENTIONED THAT EACH UNIT HAS SIX PARKING LOT. I LIKE APPLICANT TO SHOW US THE DETAILS OF THESE SIX PARKING LOTS FOR EACH UNIT. SO I REALLY RECOMMEND THE COMMISSIONERS TO VISIT THE OLIVE IN MORNING WHEN THE SCHOOL TIME, SEE HOW CLEARLY THE TRAFFIC FROM OUTSIDE OF THE MISSION VALLEY COMMUNITY, BECAUSE A LOT OF STUDENTS ARE LOCATED CROWTS THEE MISSION REALLY. AND EACH MORNING YOU SEE TONS OF CARS GET INTO, GO TO THE MISSION VALLEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, SLOW THAT TRAFFIC, SLOW THAT ROAD. IT IS VERY HEAVY TRAFFIC ROAD. SO I REALLY RECOMMEND COMMISSIONERS TO TAKE REALLY SERIOUS CONSIDERATION ABOUT THE TRAFFIC IMPACT OF THIS PROJECT. THANK YOU. >> Trish Cordova: THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER, PORNA READY. >> HI COUNCIL, MY NAME IS PORNA, I'VE BEEN A NEW RESIDENT OF FREMONT, NEW HOUSING IS ALWAYS GREAT BECAUSE WE HAVE THREE OR FOUR NEIGHBORS TO LIVE FREMONT, WE MOVE PARCEL AWAY, I'M ALSO ON THE (INAUDIBLE) BECAUSE OF NOT FINDING NEW PROJECTS IN THE AREA. BUT PLEASE CONSIDER THIS AS A GREAT ADDITION FOR FREMONT BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN ASKING A LOT OF OUR FRIENDS TO STAY AROUND SO THIS IS GREAT FOR THE CITY OF FREMONT AND ALSO FOR SCHOOLING DISTRICT AS WELL. I'M IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROMPT. THANK YOU. >> Trish Cordova: THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER, YANG YOUNG. >> HELLO, GOOD EVENING, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS YANG, AND I LIVE NEARBY IN THE AREA, MORE THAN TWO CAREERS ACTUALLY. I'M HERE TO APPROACH THE OBJECT OF PARKING. THIS PROJECT IS PRESENTED AS A SIX SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES, BUT IT IS ACTUALLY SIX ADDITIONAL ADUS. SO THIS IS EFFECTIVELY UP TO 12 ADDITIONAL UNITS ON A NARROW RESIDENTIAL AREA. THE LEVEL OF INTENSITY IS JUST TOO MUCH FOR OLIVE AVENUE, SINGLE LANE OF TRAFFIC. 12 UNITS MEANS THE POTENTIAL MORE DAILY TRAFFIC, THERE IS A SCHOOL YOU JUST PUT FIVE MILES AWAY. AND EVERY MORNING THE TRAFFIC IS HUGE AND YOU WILL BE ABLE TO SEE THERE ARE QUITE SOME ACCIDENTS JUST BECAUSE THE AUTOS, I WOULD I AM NOT OPPOSED BUT I WOULD LIKE THE DEVELOPERS TO CONSIDER DENSITY, AND I RESPECT AND URGE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO RECONSIDER THIS APPLICATION AS THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SINCE THE REDUCTION OF THE DENSITY AND THE TRAFFIC AND PARKING. THANK YOU, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> Trish Cordova: THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER, ANOV. >> HELLO, I'M ANOV. THE CONSTRUCTION OF SIX HOMES ON 680 IN THE COMMUNITY I LIKE THE SCHOOL AND LIKE ANY BIKER I HOPE, I WANT TO BE OUT OF THE WAY OF ONCOMING TRAFFIC TO AVOID TRAFFIC, HOWEVER BECAUSE OF MORE CARS THERE WILL BE A THINNER ROAD AND ON TOP OF THE CONDITION OF A CURB, THE DEVELOPERS THEY DECIDE TO SET ASIDE SOME SPACE FOR PARKING. THANK YOU. >> Trish Cordova: THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER, WILSON GOSTY. >> SO THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS. I WAS HERE LAST TIME AND I WANT TO COMMEND YOU GUYS FOR ERRING ON THE SIDE OF HISTORIC PREFERENPRESERVATION LAST TIME. THERE IS A NEW STATE LAW THAT SAYS ONCE IT'S DECIDED YOU CAN'T CHANGE IT. AND I HAVE THAT SECTION -- I CAN SEE IT BUT I HAVE THE LAW OF THAT SECTION OF THE LAW, AND WE'VE HEARD PART A OF THE SECTION. AND THERE'S ALSO PART B AND C AND THE PART C SAYS, I CAN'T READ IT RIGHT NOW BUT IT PRETTY MUCH SAYS THAT YOU CANNOT SUPERSEDE THE CONCERN OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION. THAT'S THE WAY I INTERPRET IT. I'M A LAYPERSON SO I HOPE THAT COMMISSIONERS TAKE THIS INTO CONSIDERATION AND LOOK AT C CAREFULLY AND IT'S SORT OF RENDERED THIS MEETING, IF IT YOU KNOW DOESN'T SUPERSEDE THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONCERN. THANK YOU. >> Trish Cordova: THANK YOU. THE NEXT FOUR SPEAKERS ARE, TO PLEASE COME FORWARD, ANONYA, PATRICIA, SWAPNA AND PAUL. >> HELLO. MY NAME IS ANANYA AND I'VE LIVED ON OLIVE AVENUE MY ENTIRE LIFE WHICH IS 16 YEARS. I PLAYED ON THESE STREETS AND I ALSO LEARNED TO DRIVE ON THESE STREETS. I WAS A TREND OF THE PREVIOUS OWNER OF THIS HOUSE, HER NAME WAS MARY AND SHE GAVE ME A BLARVEG IT THAT SHE MADE HERSELF WHEN I WALKED HER DOG. THE STREETS ARE REALLY DANGEROUS, EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE NOT INDIVIDUAL HOUSES ADDHERE. I KNOW IT IS DANGEROUS EVEN WITHOUT THE FACT THAT YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO TRY TO ADD SIX NEW HOUSES HERE. THERE IS A LOT OF ISSUES WITH THIS. FIRST OF ALL IT IS AN HISTORICAL BUILDING, EVEN THOSE PEOPLE HAVE CLEARLY SAID OTHERWISE, YOU HAVE ISSUES NOT ONLY WITH THE PARKING BUT WITH THE STREET SIZE. IT TAKES A LOT OF THE PEOPLE IN THE HOUSE A U-TURN TO GET ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET. IF YOU EXPECT THAT 18 CARS, ASSUMING EACH HOUSE HAS THREE CARS, YOU ARE SIMPLY IGNORING THE FACT THAT YOU WILL LOSE THE BENEFITS THAT YOU HAVE WITH HAVING THE SMALL STREET LIKE OLIVE AVENUE. THE STREET IS NOT BUILT FOR TRAFFIC. I'VE SEEN MAYBE TWO TIMES IN MY LIFE WHEN THERE'S HEAVY TRAFFIC ON THIS STREET AND IT'S SIMPLY NOT EQUIPPED FOR THAT. IF YOU ARE ADDING 12 HOUSES THERE IN SIX SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, IT IS NOT READY TO ADJUST. WHILE I DO AGREE THAT CHANGE IS ALWAYS BENEFICIAL AND I DO SEE THE POINT THAT THERE IS A HOUSING CRISIS, SIX NEW HOMES IS NOT GOING TO BE ENOUGH TO CREATE SUCH A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE THAT YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO CHANGE THE ENTIRE LIVELIHOOD OF THE ENTIRE STREET. THIS IS SIMPLY TOO BIG OF A CHANGE TO TAKE ON AND I THINK YOU SHOULD SERIOUSLY RECONSIDER IT. THANK YOU. >> Trish Cordova: THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER, PATRICIA. >> I THINK THE SOLUTION IS, FIRST OF ALL, KEEPING THE HISTORIC RESOURCE. NOBODY CAN DETERMINE IF THE HISTORIC RESOURCE IS THE RESOURCE WHEN YOU HAVE AN OLD DPR, YOU CAN'T SAY WELL THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN, THERE ISN'T NEW INFORMATION. THERE IS NEW INFORMATION THAT WOULD RENDER THAT DPR INVALID. AND I BELIEVE THAT A NEW DPR WOULD MAKE THIS A HISTORIC PROPERTY. YOU CAN'T MAKE THAT DETERMINATION JUST BY SAYING, WELL, I THINK IT'S NOT. THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO GO INTO THE INTERIOR OF THE HOUSE WHICH IS REQUIRED BY OUR CODES. WE HAVE NEW INFORMATION THAT JANET REFERRED TO. AND IT HASN'T BEEN CONSIDERED IN A NEW DPR AND IT'S TOO OLD. SO I BEG TO DIFFER. AND THESE ORDINANCES, I ALSO READ, AND I INTERPRET THEM AS BEING, THEY CAN BE -- THEY HAVE TO BE REINVALIDATED IF THERE IS ONLY FOUR YEARS. YOU JUST DON'T MAKE THAT DETERMINATION. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE THE LAW. ALSO, HAVING AN HISTORIC RESOURCE PRESERVED WOULD MAKE THE PROPERTY MORE AMENABLE TO MAYBE ONE OR TWO LESS HOUSES. BUT I'M ALL FOR DEVELOPMENT. BUT NOT ON THIS PROPERTY WITH TAKING AWAY A VERY, VERY IMPORTANT HISTORIC RESOURCE. THANK YOU. >> Trish Cordova: THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER, SWAPNA. >> GOOD EVENING, COUNCILMEMBERS. I'M HERE TO SUPPORT THE PROJECT. I WANT FREMONT, I'VE HI BEEN IN FREMONT THE PAST TONE YEARS AND I KNOW THIS CONSTRUCTION PROJECT WHAT THEY'RE PLANNING TO DO I BELIEVE THERE WILL BRING A LOT OF THE NEWER PEOPLE INTO THE COMMUNITY AS WELL AS A NEW GENERATION INTO THE CITY THAT WILL HELP, YOU KNOW, THE SCHOOLS, AS WELL AS TAXES, ALL THAT. CONSIDERING THAT, YOU KNOW, BRING THE NEW GENERATION INTO THE CITY AS YOU SEE LOT OF, YOU KNOW, AGE GROUPS, IF YOU SEE THE AGE GROUPS IN THE FREMONT CITY, EVEN WHEN YOU SEARCH IT, SO YOU NORMALLY COME WHAT ARE THE AGE GROUPS IN THE CITY, IN THIS PROJECT I HOPE THIS YOU KNOW YOU CONSIDER THIS AND BRING THE NEWER GENERATION INTO THE, YOU KNOW, INTO THE CITY, THAT WILL HELP. AND ALSO THIS PROPERTY NOT ONLY LIKE, YOU KNOW, DO THE, YOU KNOW, UNITS AS WELL AS IT WILL BRING THE VALUE AROUND THE COMMUNITY. PLEASE CONSIDER THIS, YOU KNOW, AND HOPE YOU WILL FAVOR TOWARDS LIKE, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS RIGHT. >> Trish Cordova: THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER, PAUL. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSION, MY NAME IS PAUL WELCHMEYER. I'M A RETIRED ARCHITECT FOR 40 YEARS IN FREMONT. YOU KNOW SOME OF MISHISTORIC PROJECTS, THE OLD SCHOOL MISSION SAN JOSE, AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT, I'M VERY FAMILIAR OF THESE ISSUES, I AM A REAPPOINTED HARB MEMBER AND WAS HARB MEMBER ON THE NINTH. I BELIEVE YOU ARE WITNESSING A BLUNDERED STAFF REPORT, WHEN THE ASBESTOS SHINGLES COME OFF THAT HOUSE IT WILL BE DETERMINED IT IS AN HISTORIC RESOURCE AND THIS WHOLE ISSUE CAN BE TAKEN OFF YOUR PALLET AND SENT TO HARB FOR ITS INITIAL REVIEW. THE CITY OF FREMONT VOTERS VOTED FOR AN HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD TO REVIEW SUCH ITEMS AND YOU ARE DENYING THAT RIGHT THAT THE VOTERS DEMANDED. BY APPROVING THIS PROJECT TONIGHT. THANK YOU. >> Trish Cordova: THANK YOU. THIS CONCLUDES OUR SPEAKERS FOR THE OLIVE AVENUE HOMES. >> Chair Basrai: WE HAVE FIVE MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL FROM THE APPLICANT. >> THANK YOU AGAIN, DAVID BLACKWELL, I THINK WHAT THE PUBLIC COMMENT AND THE PROCEEDING SO FAR JUST UNDERSCORE IS THAT THERE IS NOT EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD OF A SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY MUCH LESS A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE OF THAT. SO UNDER STATE LAW, YOU HAVE TO APPROVE THE PROMPT. OTHERWISE, IT IS A STRAIGHT VIOLATION OF STATE LAW. NOW, I DO WANT TO TOUCH BRIEFLY ON THE HISTORIC ISSUES. A COUPLE OF PEOPLE BROUGHT IT UP. WE TALKED ABOUT SB 330 A LITTLE BIT TONIGHT AND IT WAS BROUGHT UP IN THE STAFF REPORT. SB 330 WAS A MAJOR PIECE OF LEGISLATION TO PROMOTE HOUSING, HOUSING CRISIS ACT OF 2019 BECAUSE OF THE DIRE ISSUES WE HAD. WHAT SB 330 DID, IT TOUCHED ON MANY ISSUES, HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT THAT I TALKED ABOUT, CREATES THE VERY IMPORTANT SB 330 PRELIMINARY APPLICATION, AND OTHER THINGS. ANOTHER THING THE SB 330 CREATED IS THE STATUTE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW WITH REGARD TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION, AWAY THAT SAYS IS THAT UNLESS THERE IS A DETERMINATION MADE WHEN THE APPLICATION IS DEEMED COMPLETE THAT THE SITE IS HISTORIC, THAT CAN THOUGHT BE CONSIDERED, CANNOT BE CHANGED TO A HISTORIC SITE DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE PROJECT. THAT IS EXACTLY WHERE WE ARE HERE. WHEN THIS PROJECT WAS COMPLETE THERE WAS NO FIND ING AT ALL BY THE CITY THAT THIS SITE WAS HISTORIC. THAT'S WHY SB 330 ADDED THIS SO WE DON'T HAVE A SITUATION WHERE SOMEONE RELIES ON THE LAWS THAT ARE IN PLACE AT THE TIME, THEY MOVED TOWARDS AN APPLICATION AND THEN THERE IS A CLAIM THAT THERE'S LIVING SITE, THAT THERE IS A HISTORIC DESIGNATION DURING THE APPLICATION PROCESS. THAT'S KIND OF WHAT'S HAPPENING NOW. AND THAT SIMPLY WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF WHAT SB 330, THE COMPETITOR INTENT OF SB 330 AS WELL AS THE PARTICULAR LANGUAGE. SO ANYWAY, JUST WANT TO ADDRESS THAT QUICKLY FOR YOU HOPEFULLY TO ALLAY ANY CONFUSION BUT THAT STATUTE REALLY DOES FORECLOSE THE HISTORIC ISSUE, THANK YOU. >> Chair Basrai: ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS TO THE APPLICANT AT THIS POINT? COMMISSIONER YEE. >> Commissioner Yee: YES, AS YOU HEARD MANY OF THE PEOPLE HAD CONCERNS ON PARKING. WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT IN REGARDS TO THE DESIGN SO THAT THEY UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH THERE, TO ALLEVIATE ANY OF THE PARKING AND THE TRAFFIC IMPACT? >> UM, CAN STAFF PUT UP THE SITE PLAN, OR OTHERWISE I HAVE IT HERE IF THERE'S A WAY TO SHOW IT FROM MY iPAD. OKAY. SO WE HAVE OUR SYMMETRICAL SITE WITH THREE MORE OR LESS MIRROR IMAGE MOUSES ON EACH SIDE. THE FRONT, MIDDLE AND REAR OF THE PLANS ARE EACH DIFFERENT, TO ADDRESS THE SLIGHT DIFFERENCES IN EACH POSITION ON THE SITE. AS YOU CAN SEE THE TWO FRONT HOUSES HAVE TWO-CAR ATTACHED GARAGES AND ROOM FOR TWO ADDITIONAL CARS IN THE PARKING APRON OR THE DRIVEWAY IN FRONT. THE FOUR HOUSES TOWARDS THE MIDDLE AND REAR HAVE DETACHED TWO CAR GARAGES, PUSHED WAY IN THE BACK, WITH ROOM FOR TWO CARS IN FRONT AND POTENTIALLY TWO ADDITIONAL CARS PARKED IN A TAN TANDEM FASHION STRETCHING THE LENGTH OF THE SITE. IN TOTAL, THERE WOULD BE 32, IF I'M DOING THE MATH RIGHT PARKING SPACES PROVIDED ONSITE, AGAIN UP TO SIX, FOUR OF THE HOUSES AND FOUR ON THE FRONT TWO HOUSES. IN ADDITION TO THESE STREET IMPROVEMENTS BEING DONE ALONG THE FRONT AN ON OLIVE AVENUE WHICH WILL GET NEW CURB GUTTERS SIDEWALK AND PAVEMENT TO ALIGN WITH THE DEVELOPED SECTION OF THE STREET ON EITHER SIDE WHICH WILL WIDEN THE PAVEMENT ON THE TREAT AND PROVIDE PARALLEL PARKING SPACES ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF THE SITE. I BELIEVE ABOUT SEVEN OR EIGHT ADDITIONAL PARALLEL SPACES IN FRONT OF THE SITE. ANYWAY, THAT'S AN OVERVIEW OF THE PARKING PROVIDED. IT MEETS ALL THE CITY STANDARDS FOR REQUIRED PARKING AND ADDITIONALLY PROVIDES THAT WIDENING OF THE STREET FOR STREET PARKING IN FRONT. >> Commissioner Yee: THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. IN TERMS OF THE DESIGN THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO IMPLEMENT THERE. TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS THAT THE COMMUNITY HAS CONCERNS ABOUT, REGARDING PARKING, THE TRAFFIC, AND THE FLOW. BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I REALIZE THAT SOME OF THE INDIVIDUALS OUT THERE IN THE COMMUNITY PROBABLY DIDN'T LOOK AT THE BLUEPRINTS AND DIDN'T REALIZE THERE WAS GOING TO BE A WIDENING OF THE STREET, AND AS YOU ELABORATED ON IS GOING TO MIRROR WHAT YOU CURRENTLY SEE RIGHT THERE FOR NO THE CURRENT SIDEWALKS. SO THERE WILL BE A CONTINUAL SIDEWALKS. THANK YOU. >> Chair Basrai: COMMISSIONER ZHANG. >> Commissioner Zhang: IS THERE A DEDICATED PARKING FOR ADU? >> THERE ISN'T ANY DEARVETION DIFFERENTIATION, FOR THE RESIDENTS OF THE ADU AND THE MAIN RESIDENTS. THAT IS UP TO THE DISCRETION OF THE PROPERTY OWNER. >> Commissioner Zhang: THANK YOU. >> Chair Basrai: COMMISSIONER EZZY. >> Commissioner Ezzy: THIS IS FOR EITHER THE APPLICANT OR THE STAFF EITHER ONE THAT CAN TAKE IT. WHAT ARE THE OBLIGATIONS IN TERMS OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE, I KNOW THERE IS A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO ASKED SOME QUESTIONS AROUND WATER, SEWER, VARIETY OF THINGS. MY SENSE IS THERE ARE TYPICALLY THINGS THAT ARE BUILT INTO THE PROJECT THAT ARE INTENDED TO MITIGATE AT A THOSE SORTS OF THINGS. DO WE HAVE ANY INFORMATION THAT YOU CAN SHARE THAT IS PART OF THIS PROJECT THAT IS TYPICALLY REQUIRED WHEN SOMEBODY IS PUTTING UP A PROJECT LIKE THIS TO MITIGATE ANY POTENTIAL IMPACTS THAT THEIR PROJECT WOULD HAVE? >> SURE. SO YOU HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT THAT THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO DO FRONT AN IMPROVEMENTS, CURB GUTTER SIDEWALK THAT WILL TIE INTO THE EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS TO THE WEST. AS PART OF OUR PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS WE PREFER TO DISTRICTS, UNION CITY WATER DISTRICT, FOR EXAMPLE, WORKING WITH OUR OWN ENGINEERING STAFFER TO MAKE SURE THAT OTHER KIND OF BASIC UTILITIES AND CITY FACILITIES ARE PROVIDED EVERYTHING FROM FIRE HYDRANTS TO STREET LIGHTS, ET CETERA. SO THIS PROJECT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO MEET ALL THOSE CITY STANDARDS AND THERE IS ADEQUATE CAPACITY TO SERVE THE PROJECT IN TERMS OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND THAT IS PART OF OUR TYPICAL REVIEW PROCESS. >> Commissioner Ezzy: THAT IS SOMETHING THAT ENGINEERS HAVE LOOKED AT AND SAID OKAY WE'RE BUILDING SIX HOMES HERE, THIS IS THE NATURE OF WHAT IS REQUIRED IN THE EVENT OF THE EMERGENCY, THIS IS THE CURRENT CAPACITY AND SO THIS IS WHAT WOULD NEED TO BE DONE TO THE EXTENT THERE IS ANY REQUIREMENT OR FEES OR ANYTHING IMPOSED ON THE APPLICANT TO ENSURE IT IS FUNGING? >> ALL THROWS THINGS ARE LOOKED AT IT WILL WATER LINES FOR DOMESTIC SERVICE AND FIRE HYDRANTS AND SPACING, ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE LOOKED AT, YES. >> Commissioner Ezzy: OKAY, THANK YOU. >> Chair Basrai: OKAY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS? AT THIS TIME, I THINK WE CAN CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THANK YOU EVERYBODY. AND WE'LL OPEN IT UP TO ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FROM ANY COMMISSIONERS TO THE STAFF. COMMISSIONER RAMAMURTHI. >> Vice Chair Ramamurthi: YES. I THINK MY QUESTION REMAINS UNANSWERED. I FEEL OTHER THAN THE VALUATITY OF THE OLD DPR IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT MAKES IT ELIGIBLE? YOU GUYS HAVE NOT PROVIDED ME A GOOD ANSWER FOR THAT. AND SECONDLY, I WONDER WHY, INSTEAD OF DOING A SECOND DPR, YOU GO AND GET THIS HOUSING, I KNOW WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE LAW BUT WHEN THERE IS SPECIFICALLY A PROVISION LIKE THIS, IT HAS TO BE WITHIN FIVE YEARS, WHY YOU WOULDN'T DO IT. IS IT BECAUSE IT MAY NOT PASS THIS TIME? BECAUSE THEY MAY HAVE TO GO LOOK IN THE INTERIORS? SO I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT YOU HAVE GIVEN ME -- IS THERE ANY OTHER INFORMATION YOU CAN GIVE ME AT THIS POINT FOR ME TO FEEL COMFORTABLE ON VOTING ON THIS? >> THANK YOU. IF I MAY I MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION AND CONTEXT. SO THE CALIFORNIA RESOURCES CODE THAT WAS PROVIDED RELATING TO THE FIVE YEARS EVALUATION, I THINK SPENCER PROVIDED INITIAL RESPONSE WHICH IS CORRECT THAT THAT CRITERIA IS RELATED TO GETTING A RESOURCE ELIGIBLE, LISTED FOR THE CALIFORNIA REGISTER. SO IN THIS CASE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A DPR THAT WAS DONE BUSY A QUALIFIED HISTORICAL ARCHITECT THAT DETERMINED THIS BUILDING IS NOT AN ELIGIBLE RESOURCE. SO THAT HISTORICAL RESOURCES CODE DOESN'T REALLY RELATE TO THE SITUATION THAT IS BEFORE YOU TODAY. IT DOESN'T BECOME INVALID OR STALE JUST BECAUSE THE ANALYSIS WAS DONE IS FIVE YEARS OLD, THE CONCLUSIONS AREN'T CHANGED AND AGAIN THAT CODE SECTION RELATES TO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO GET A RESOURCE LISTED ON THE STATE REGISTER. >> Vice Chair Ramamurthi: DOESN'T IT SAY IT HAS TO BE WITHIN FIVE YEARS WHY IT'S NOT VALID, WHY THAT POINT IS NOT VALID? >> THE SITUATION, AGAIN THAT SECTION REFERS TO A RESOURCE THAT IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE STATE REGISTER. THAT IS NOT BEFORE YOU TODAY, THAT IS SOMETHING CONSIDERED BY THE STATE. >> Vice Chair Ramamurthi: BUT YOU KNOW WE ARE NOT WORKING IN A SILO. WE HAVE TO TAKE THE WHOLE THING INTO CONSIDERATION. WE ARE NOT GOING TO SAY OH WE'RE GOING TO IGNORE THIS BECAUSE IT DOESN'T ALIGN WITH WHAT WE WANT THE RESULT TO BE. >> SO THAT CODE IS VERY SPECIFIC TO LISTING FOR THE STATE REGISTER, IT DOESN'T, IT'S NOT APPLICABLE HERE TO THE SPECIFIC SITUATION. >> Vice Chair Ramamurthi: I FEEL IT'S -- I'M NOTE CONVINCED BUT I WILL END MY QUESTIONING HERE. OTHERS CAN ASK. THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING. >> Chair Basrai: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER YEE. >> Commissioner Yee: YES. PIGGYBACKING OFF OF VICE CHAIR, REGARDING THIS FIVE YEARS. YOU KNOW, WHEN I ASKED A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO, TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS, I WOULD HAVE HOPED THAT IF THERE WERE ANY CHANGES, IF ANY, REGARDING UPDATING DPR THAT THE REQUIREMENTS AT LEAST COULD BE BROUGHT BEFORE US, YOU KNOW, AT THE STAFF REPORT SAYING THERE HAS BEEN NO CHANGES IN THE LAST 18 YEARS SINCE THIS DFR. I THINK THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I WANTED TO FIND OUT AND DELAY THIS TO DETERMINE IF THERE WERE ANY CHANGES, YOU KNOW, PRIOR TO -- I MEAN SUBSEQUENT TO 2008. AND THEN SEEING THAT THIS SAYS YOU KNOW WE NEED TO FIND SOMETHING THAT'S AT LEAST LESS THAN FIVE YEARS OLD I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WEREN'T ANY CHANGES TO HOW THIS HOME IS BEING LOOKED UPON. IF IT'S HISTORICAL OR NOT. AND SO THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS I WANTED TO SEE AND FIND OUT FROM STAFF, IF THERE WERE REQUIREMENT CHANGES THAT HAD HAPPENED. IF ANY. IN THE LAST 18 YEARS. >> WE'VE REVIEWED THE PERMIT RECORDS ON THE PROPERTY, GOING BACK TO THE MID 1990S AND THERE ARE NO PERMITS ON FILE THAT IDENTIFY ANY CHANGES THAT HAVE OCCURRED TO THE EXTERIOR OF THE HOUSE IN REGARDS TO THE -- >> Commissioner Yee: NO, MY QUESTIONS IS ABOUT FROM THE STATE'S PERSPECTIVE IN TERMS OF THE STANDARDS IN TERMS OF HOW THEY WOULD EVALUATE. IF THERE WERE ANY CHANGES FOR A DPR ANALYSIS RATHER THAN LOOKING AT THE EXISTING PERMITS. THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING. IF THERE WERE ANY CHANGES FROM THE STATE LEVEL REGARDING SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS TO MAKE SOMETHING DEEMED HISTORICAL. HAS THERE BEEN ANY CHANGES AT THE STATE LEVEL IN THE LAST 18 YEARS, TO REEVALUATE, TO LOOK AT ANOTHER D PRMPLET? BECAUSE IF THERE ARE CHANGES THEN I WOULD SAY WE NEED TO DO ANOTHER DPR. >> I DON'T BELIEVE THERE ARE. >> Commissioner Yee: IS THERE ANY WAY TO CHECK? OH, YOU'RE ON MUTE. >> WE CAN CERTAINLY RESEARCH IT AND FOLLOW UP. BUT THE DPR WAS INCLUDED AS AN ATTACHMENT ITEM, AND YEAH, IT APPEARS TO INCLUDE ALL THE SAME CRITERIA THAT'S -- >> Commissioner Yee: I KNOW, IT LOOKS EXACTLY LIKE THE ONE, EVERYTHING IS LIKE THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS, YOU KNOW THERE A COUPLE MONTHS AGO. BUT THAT'S WHY WITH THE DELAY I WAS THINKING THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE HOMEWORK DONE IN REGARDS IF THERE WERE ANY CHANGES AT THE STATE LEVEL THAT WOULD TRIGGER THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO DO AN UPDATED DPR RIGHT? BECAUSE THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WHEN I SAW THIS A COUPLE OF HOURS AGO, I GO, AH-HA, I'M NOT SURE IF THERE ARE ANY UPDATES THAT WOULD TRIGGER THIS, YOU KNOW, AND YOU'RE NOT ALL EXACTLY SURE. I'M NOT SURE EITHER. SO I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF THERE ARE -- WE NEED TO KNOW IF THERE HAS BEEN ANY CHANGES OR NOT. IF THERE ARE, THEN WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT REEVALUATING THIS DPR. IF THERE HASN'T THEN WE ACCEPT THE EXISTING DPR BECAUSE THEN IT'S VALID. >> IF I MAY JUST TO ADD A LITTLE BIT TOO. I DID LOOK AT THE SECTION. I DON'T THINK THIS FIVE YEAR PROVISION IS APPLICABLE HERE. I MEAN IT REALLY IS IS TALKING ABOUT NOT BEING ABLE TO RELY ON A DPR FORM THAT IS MORE THAN FIVE YEARS OLD, TO QUALIFY SOMETHING TO BE LISTED ON THE STATE REGISTER. NOT TO EVALUATE ANYTHING ARE FOR CEQA PURPOSES OR ANY KINDS OF THE EVALUATIONS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. SO THAT'S ONE THING. I DO THINK STAFF IS ACCURATELY REPRESENTING THAT IS NOT AN APPLICABLE SECTION THERE. >> Commissioner Yee: SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS IT WOULD HAVE TO BE INITIATED BY SOMEONE TO SAY, I WANT TO SEIZE IF IT'S HISTORICAL. >> THAT'S THE CONTEXT WHICH THIS SECTION APPLIES. NOT WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE. THAT'S APPLICABLE. >> Commissioner Yee: THAT'S WHY I WANT TO TALK TO THE ATTORNEY HERE. >> THAT'S ONE THING. AND THEN I WOULD ALSO SAY WE ALSO REALLY DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO REEVALUATE A DPR IN A FASHION THAT WOULD ALTER OUR CONCLUSION IN LIGHT OF THE STATE LAW THAT APPLIES TO THE STATE LAW THAT WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. THERE ARE QUESTIONS RAISED AND WE DID TALK ABOUT THIS AT THE LAST HEARING, WE ARE ASKING FOR MORE CEQA EVALUATION, AND CEQA INFORMATION IS RELEVANT BUT IT IS NOW SIR COUPLE SCRIBED ON US CHANGING THE HISTORICAL CHARACTER OF THE SITE. EVEN IF WE LOOKED AT IT IT REALLY WOULDN'T AFFECT THE DECISION WE COULD MAKE ON CEQA GROUNDS OR IN ANY OTHER MANNER WITH RESPECT TO THIS APPLICATION RIGHT NOW BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE STATE LAW HAS PROVIDED CERTAINTY TO THE APPLICANT. >> Commissioner Yee: NO, I UNDERSTAND. THAT'S WHY I JUST WANTED TO GET THE CLARITY IN TERMS OF WHAT YOU JUST SAID. AS WELL AS AT THE SAME TIME, TO FIND OUT IF THERE WERE ANY REAL CHANGES AT THE STATE LEVEL. BUT FROM WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IT HASSING TO BE TRIGGERED BY SOMEBODY TO DO AN UPDATED DPR. AND BECAUSE THERE IS NO TRIGGER FOR THAT, WE HAVE TO GO WITH WHAT'S FROM 2008. CLEAR FOR ALL OF US THAT IS HEARING -- >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> Commissioner Yee: THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE. WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT FROM THIS PERSPECTIVE IT IS ALL BASED OPEN CEQA AND LOOKING AT THE CURRENT LAW THAT WE HAVE SET BEFORE US AS WELL AS SB 330 AND ALL THOSE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED BEFORE US TONIGHT. CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> Commissioner Yee: OKAY, THANK YOU. >> Chair Basrai: COMMISSIONER LIU. >> Commissioner Liu: YES, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE STAFF. WAS THERE EVER ANY ATTEMPT FROM THE PREVIOUS OWNER TO TRY TO DESIGNATE THE HOUSE AS A HISTORICAL HOUSE, AND TO UPDATE THE DPR? >> THE DPR IS PREPARED IN 2008, WE DON'T HAVE ANY RECORD OF ANYONE REAPPLYING FOR OR HAVING A SUBSEQUENT DPR COMPLETED. >> Commissioner Liu: OKAY I REMEMBER I THINK AT THE LAST HEARING THE PREVIOUS OWNER WAS HERE. AND SAID ALL THESE FOND MEMORIES SHE HAD AND WANTED TO PRESERVE THE HOUSE. I'M JUST CURIOUS IF SHE WANTED TO PRESERVE THE HOUSE FROM BEFORE, WHY DIDN'T SHE TRY TO DESIGNATE THE HOUSE AS HISTORICAL? >> I CAN'T SPEAK FOR WHY SHE DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE IT REGISTERED. BUT THEY NEVER CHOSE TO GO FORWARD WITH THAT. >> Commissioner Liu: SO NOW THAT IT'S BEING SOLD TO THE NEW OWNER, THE NEW OWNER I DON'T SEIZE WHY THEY WOULD HAVE ANY MOTIVATE TO REMOVE ANYTHING TO RESTORE, REMOVE THE FACADE TO REVEAL WHATEVER WOULD DEEM IT HISTORICAL. I JUST -- SO THAT'S MY COMMENT. THANK YOU. >> Chair Basrai: COMMISSIONER RAMAMURTHI. >> Vice Chair Ramamurthi: SHE ANSWERED MY QUESTION, ACTUALLY. >> Chair Basrai: COMMISSIONER EZZY. YEDZ THANK YOU. >> Commissioner Ezzy: I HAD AQUE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC RAISED THE C-1, CONVAING THE DISCUSSION RIGHT, IN TERMS OF THE AMENDMENT FROM I THINK IT WAS -- IT WAS I THINK IT WAS THIS PAST YEAR, 2025 WHERE THERE WAS AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAW THAT IS KIND OF AT ISSUE HERE IN TERMS OF THE PENDENCY OF THE PROJECT AND WHAT CAN AND CAN'T BE DONE ONCE THE APPLICATION IS DEEMED COMPLETE. ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT SUBDIVISION C-1 THAT TALKS ABOUT THE MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC PUT UP THAT TALKS ABOUT NOTHING IN THIS SECTION CAN BE MADE TO SUPERSEDE X Y Z. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT CODE SECTION -- >> THAT CODE SECTION. >> Commissioner Ezzy: DESTINY PEPERSPECTIVE ON THAT? >> C-1, FLOG IN THIS SECTION SUPERSEDES OR MODIFIES CEQA BASICALLY IS WHAT WE'RE SAYING. SO THAT'S WHAT WE WERE SAYING BEFORE. SO IN OTHER WORDS, CEQA STILL APPLIES, AND WE STILL HAVE TO EVALUATE THINGS IN TERMS OF CEQA. BUT HERE, OUR CEQA DETERMINATION HAS TO BE BASED ON THE HISTORIC DETERMINATION THAT'S ALREADY BEEN MADE. SO THAT DETERMINATION IS THAT IT'S NOT AN HISTORIC RESOURCE. SO ANY, YOU KNOW, ANY EVALUATION UNDER CEQA WOULD ONLY BE TEACTED BY A CHANGE IN THAT DETERMINING WHICH WE'RE NOT ABLE TO MAKE RIGHT NOW. >> Commissioner Ezzy: OKAY SO THAT PROVISION THAT CITATION THERE IN TERMS OF WHAT THE PROVISION THAT'S AT ISSUE DOESN'T SUPERSEDE IS CEQA. IT'S CALLING OUT CEQA. >> AND CEQA IS NOT MODIFIED BY IT HOWEVER WE ARE NOT AT LIBERTY TO CHANGE THIS HISTORIC DETERMINES. CEQA IS NOT AFFECTED BY ANY AT THIS JUNCTURE BY THAT SECTION, OUR ABILITY IS CONSTRAINED THERE. >> Commissioner Ezzy: GOT IT, THANKS. >> Chair Basrai: ANY MORE QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION FOR STAFF? OKAY. I WILL OPEN FOR DELIBERATION OR FOR ANYBODY TO MAKE A MOTION. >> Vice Chair Ramamurthi: BEFORE WE MAKE A MOTION I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A STATEMENT. AS I SAID, I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY, I'M TRYING TO GET ALL THE ANSWERS, BUT I FEEL LIKE, WE HAVE ALWAYS AS A COMMISSION SUPPORTED HOUSING UNITS. AFFORDABLE HOMES AND MORE HOMES BEING CONSTRUCTED IN FREMONT. WE ARE NOT ADVERSE TO THAT AT ALL. HOWEVER, IN THIS PARTICULAR THING YOU GAVE A VERY GOOD ANSWER ABOUT WHY WE HAVE TO DISREGARD THAT, IT HAS TO BE WITHIN FIVE YEARS. BUT AS SOMEONE WHO'S NOT A LIAR, WHO HAS BEEN PUT IN THIS POSITION TO WORK ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE, I WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE IF AT LEAST THE QUESTION THAT COMMISSIONER YEE RAISED, THAT SINCE THIS DPR WAS DONE IN 2008, WAS THERE ANY CHANGES IN THE STATE LAWS? THAT QUESTION WAS NOT ANSWERED. BECAUSE WE DID NOT MAKE TIME TO DO THE RESEARCH ON THAT, OR WE DON'T HAVE THE RESOURCES TO DO THE RESEARCH ON THAT. SO BECAUSE OF THESE REASONS PERSONALLY, I FEEL I NEED TO LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE. AND FOR THAT REASON I'LL BE VOTING ACCORDINGLY, THAT IS JUST MY STATEMENT. >> Chair Basrai: OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS, MOTIONS FROM ANY COMMISSIONERS? COMMISSIONER CRAIG. >> Commissioner Craig: YES, I MEN, I'D REALLY LIKE TO SEE THIS PLACE SAVED. BUT BASED ON MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE RULES THAT WE HAVE TO FOLLOW, AND THE STATE LAW, I DON'T KNOW HOW WE CAN PROTECT THIS BASED ON ALL OF THE STATE LAWS THAT WE HAVE TO TOLL AND ESPECIALLY THESE NEW ONES. SO I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY ELSE WANTS TO MAKE ANY STATEMENTS BUT I'D MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WHAT STAFF PROPOSES. >> Chair Basrai: OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION THERE COMMISSIONER CRAIG TO APPROVE STAFF REPRESENTATIONS. COMMISSIONER ZHANG. >> Commissioner Zhang: THANK YOU. I THINK THIS SITE ALSO BEEN DEVELOPED FOR THE COMMUNITY THAWBL BUT FROM MY UNDERSTANDING THIS FIVE YEAR RULE IS MAINLY ABOUT I REGISTERED NOT ABOUT LIKE EVALUATION AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE DPR SHOULD BE OR COULD BE REEVALUATED BASED ON THE CURRENT STATE, THIS IS NOT REALLY NOT (INAUDIBLE) AS WELL AS TO KNOW I THINK THE BURDEN IS ON THE OPPONENT'S SIDE THE THEY FIND ANY NEW EVIDENCE (INAUDIBLE) REGARDING THE PARKING ON THE STREET, THE SPACE FOR EACH SITE IS SUFFICIENT TO INDICATE A LOT OF CONCERNS AS WELL AS THE STREET PARKING ACTUALLY POTENTIALLY GIVEN, AND SO I WOULD (INAUDIBLE). >> Chair Basrai: ALL RIGHT WE HAVE A SECOND, COMMISSIONER YEE DID YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING? >> Commissioner Yee: I GUESS I WILL JUST MAKE A STATEMENT. I FEEL THE SAME WAY AS COMMISSIONER CRAIG. UNFORTUNATELY OUR HANDS ARE TIED. BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT IS IN FRONT OF US, AND WITH THE STATE LAWS THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN PLACE FOR THE LAST SEVEN YEARS, YOU KNOW, WE ARE BOUND BY, YOU KNOW, THE NEED FOR HOUSING. AND IT'S UNFORTUNATE TO SEIZE WHAT IS A HOUSE THAT IS BOARDER LINE HISTORICAL, THAT HAS TO BE TORN DOWN IN ORDER TO HAVE THESE SIX HOMES BE PUT IN PLACE. BUT JUST LIKE COMMISSIONER CRAIG SAID, IT'S BEE GRUDGINGLY FOR ME AT LEAST, IN TERMS OF WHAT I'LL HAVE TO DECIDE. BUT BASED ON STATE LAW, WE KIND OF UNFORTUNATELY HAVE NO CHOICE. THANK YOU. >> Chair Basrai: SO I HAVE A SECOND, AND COMMENT FROM COMMISSIONER YEE AND COMMISSIONER EZZY. >> Commissioner Ezzy: YES, THIS IS -- THIS IS COMPLICATED. AND I APPRECIATE ALL THE DISCUSSION, AND I APPRECIATE THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY ON ALL SIDES OF THE ISSUE THAT HAVE COME OUT. SOME HAVE COME OUT FOR A SECOND TIME ON THIS. AND SO APPRECIATE THE DISCUSSION. I THINK I'M KIND OF WORKING THROUGH SIMILAR ISSUES AS COMMISSIONER YEE, COMMISSIONER CRAIG, IN TERMS OF THE NATURE OF THE STATE LAW AND WHERE WE ARE. AND WHAT I'M REALLY STRUGGLING WITH IS, YOU KNOW, THE PRIOR OWNER HAD NOT SORT OF DONE A REEVALUATION OR, YOU KNOW, ET CETERA IN TERMS OF ENSURING THAT THIS THING WAS QUALIFIED AS A HISTORICAL RESOURCE PRIOR TO THE SALE OR PRIOR TO PUTTING IT UP FOR SALE WHICH IS A FACT THAT REALLY STANDS OUT TO ME THAT MAKES THIS EVEN MORE CHALLENGING, RIGHT? AND SO BETWEEN THOSE ISSUES AND KIND OF THE BOX WE'VE BEEN PUT IN HERE A LITTLE BIT WEEKLY, I AM KIND OF WORKING THROUGH THAT IN MY MIND. BUT DO APPRECIATE THE FEEDBACK FROM STAFF ON SOME OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, SOME OF THE STREET IMPROVEMENTS, THE DISCUSSION ON PARKING ET CETERA. SO, YOU KNOW, I JUST WANT TO PUT THAT OUT THERE IN TERMS OF KIND OF WHERE I'M AT WITH THIS. >> Chair Basrai: OKAY. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. AND NO OTHER MOTIONS. SO WE CAN -- SO THE MOTION IS TO ACCEPT STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND A SECOND SO WE'LL VOTE. >> THE VOTE IS SIX AYES AND ONE ANYWAY AND THE PROJECT HAS BEEN REMOVED. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ANSWER ACTION ON THIS ITEM IS FINAL UNLESS APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITHIN TEN CALENDAR DAYS CHAIR BACK TO YOU. >> Chair Basrai: THANK YOU, EVERYONE. WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 2. >> THANK YOU, ITEM 2 IS THE AMERICAN TOWER COMPANY WIRELESS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. 201000001, allow for the continued operation of an existing wireless telecommunications facility located at 38491 Fremont Boulevard in the Centerville Community Plan Area; and to consider a finding that no further environmental review is required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per, without limitation, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Existing Facilities, CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, In-fill Development Projects, CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, as the project is consistent with the General Plan, for which an Environmental Impact Report WAS PREVIOUSLY PREPARED AND CERTIFIED. Sections 15162 and 15163, as none of the circumstances requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR have occurred. Each of the foregoing provides a separate and independent basis for CEQA compliance. WITH THIS, THIS EENGS IS THE PLAN ORE, KEVIN LEE, HE IS HERE WITH A PRESENTATION AS WELL AS AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS ON THE ITEM. AGAIN THE APPLI