Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission approves Duster Berry townhomes after environmental review and mitigation conditions
Summary
The Fremont Planning Commission approved the Duster Berry Residences, a 24‑unit detached townhome project with three on‑site affordable units and accessory dwelling units, after staff and the applicant said recent Phase I/II environmental assessments found no unmitigable contamination and a noise study tied mitigation to an 8‑foot sound wall and interior building measures.
Get email alerts on the Housing Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Fremont Planning Commission on Feb. 26 approved the Duster Berry Residences, a proposal to build 24 detached townhomes with three on‑site below‑market units and 21 accessory dwelling units at 3755 and 3757 Dusterberry Way.
Planner Kevin Lee told commissioners the proposal includes a discretionary design review permit, vesting tentative tract map No. 8726, private street entitlement, tree removals and waivers under state density‑bonus law. The site is 1.86 acres in the Centerville community plan area; staff recommended finding the project consistent with the general plan and exempt or otherwise compliant with CEQA under the guidelines cited in the staff report.
The project team said the design features three‑story, four‑bedroom units with two‑car garages, private yards and a central open space. ‘‘We believe Duster Berry Residences would be an important contribution to this growing neighborhood,’’ Scott Conley of Valeo Partners said during the applicant presentation.
Commissioners probed environmental and noise issues. Commissioner Yee raised the age of a 2004 mitigated negative declaration and asked whether recent conditions and the long history of auto‑oriented uses had been captured. Environmental consultant Jenna Keith said her firm completed a Phase I ESA in 2024 and followed quickly with a Phase II investigation that included soil, groundwater and soil‑gas sampling. ‘‘There were no significant findings,’’ she said, adding that groundwater results did not exceed residential screening levels and that only limited areas of arsenic — likely from prior agricultural use — were identified. The consultant recommended preparing a site‑specific soil management plan during demolition and construction.
On noise, Commissioner Zhang questioned whether an 8‑foot fence would be sufficient to mitigate sound from nearby commercial uses. Kevin Lee and the applicant said the city‑commissioned noise study evaluated an 8‑foot wood sound wall as part of a mitigation package that also requires interior building measures and a noise verification prior to occupancy.
After limited additional discussion, Commissioner Lou moved to accept staff’s recommendation to approve the project; the motion passed with five ayes, one no and one commissioner absent. The planning commission’s decision is final unless appealed to the City Council within 10 calendar days.
The approval includes the discretionary design review, vesting tentative tract map No. 8726, private street entitlement, tree removals and the waivers requested under state density bonus law, subject to the conditions of approval contained in the staff report. The applicant and staff said required technical studies and mitigation measures — including a soil management plan and a pre‑occupancy noise verification — will be imposed as conditions.
Next steps: The applicant may proceed to implement conditions of approval and apply for permits; appeals must be filed within 10 calendar days if parties wish to seek review by the City Council.
